Boeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (15 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1023 times:
The Boeing Company will build the Boeing 747-500X and 747-600X. I visited Boeing recently and they said that the annoucment would me made in a couple of months. My cousin works for Boeing and she knows this. The 747-600X will be 279 feet long, making it the largest aircraft in the world by far. It would be bigger than the Antonov 225!! The 747-600X will have 4 engines that will produce 85,000 to 95,000 lbs of thrust each!!! This airplane's cruising speed will be 612mph at 35,000ft. If anyone disagrees, or has more information, please respond.
DeltaAir From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (15 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1017 times:
If Boeing gets this out before Airbus, Airbus might be in trouble. Pilots wouldn't have to get different certification for the new 747 unlike the A3XXX. Also, Airlines would want 747's so it would match their fleet of other 747's. United Airlines, Cathay Pacific, British Airways, Delta, and others would probably be interested.
Dash8 From New Zealand, joined Aug 2005, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (15 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1016 times:
I also think that these 747's will have a lower acquisition cost then the A3XX due to it's similarity with it's older siblings. The A3XX has to be built from scratch so it'll be more expensive and will take longer to build.
So Airbus better hurry up in making a decision if they even sense that Boeing will go forward with the 500/600.
EASTERN401 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (15 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1016 times:
I have heard it said that the A3XX would be more efficient, thus potentially more appealing to airlines. Anyone have any ideas about this? I think they should take the MD 11 and put another level on it...but that's just from what I think would look cool. I don't know whether that would be reasonable cost/efficiency wise or not.
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (15 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1016 times:
First of all, let me say I would love to see a 747-500X/600X. However, I don't think this will happen. Boeing will not build both the 500X/600X and the New Large Aircraft (NLA) therefore they need to settle on one or the other. I believe Airbus would prefer Boeing to build the 500/600 rather than the NLA as the 500/600 performance would be more inferior to the A3XX than the NLA and the A3XX superior economics over the 500/600 may be greater than the price differential. Even if the price differential is great, you will still have some interim technology which will make for a really good aircraft but not a great one for the next 30 years. The NLA would be compatible with Boeings new cockpit layouts while offering a quantum leap in performance which Airbus could probably only hope to match but not beat. Don't get me wrong guys, I would love to see both the new 747's and the NLA but let's face it, the economics rule and it's these economics which have slowed A3XX development, 747-500/600 development, and of course Airbus' formation into a Single Corporate Entity.
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (15 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1015 times:
The decision is up to Boeing. Airbus is already working on the A3XX.
Ofcourse every Boeing fans says it's a weird design, too big and so on but if you think when the 747 was announced in the 60's (I think) people were saying exactly the same as you today about the 747.
Just look at the 747 sucess.
Why not the A3XX?
Luis, Faro, Portugal
PS: Face it, the 747 will end some day like other great aircrafts (707, DC8....)
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (15 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1021 times:
The basic contruction of the B747 has its origin in the 1960s. Boeing can transform specific parts, but they can never change the basic. Though, during 30 years there are many things which have been improved: Streched upper deck, winglets, avionics, streched fuselage, and then? Somewhere you will reach a point where nothing can be improved any more. Then the only possibility left is: design a new aircraft!
The A3XX has its origin in the 1990s, airlines and Airbus are working together, that way they build an aircraft which will fit exactly, from the very beginning.
Sure Boeing can help to save the airlines money with a streched B747...but how long? Imagine, if Boeing comes out with the B747X earlier and gets many important orders, the A3XX wouldn't have a chance any more. And then? Boeing would have an even greater monopoly than now, and then they could go up with their prices as much as they want. And then the airlines wouldn't save any more, then they would have to pay a special Boeing monopoly price...
And who would have to pay for that monopoly at the end as well? It us, the travellers.
I'm sure some airlines want something which is a revolution, not a streched "oldtimer", and airlines don't want to see a monopoly, not again, as in the last decades.
The A3XX will come and it will be successful. Let's wait and see...
William From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1285 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (15 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1016 times:
I find amazing that Boeing find ways to keep s t r e t c h i n g their aircraft. Has anyone heard of the term,"tailstrikes".
I wonder what kind of landing gear are they going to use? I read that they were thinking about using the 777's 6 wheel bogeys in the rear. If this is true,this is going to be one tall standing aircraft,of course I guess it would have to be,so the tail will not strike during rotation.
Jbrezmes From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (15 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1016 times:
Well, from my point of view, all the discussion can be concentrated into a few points:
-1) Type rating commonality with 747-1/2/3/400:
Let's face it: The pilots who will pilot this aircraft will come from classic 747's; or the airlines ordering the new aircraft will replace/keep classic 747's as well, so they will love the flexibility they will have with their crew force.
-2) Maintenance commonality:
As stated before, a big advantatge in training, spare-parts investment, etc. If Boeing goes with the -5x/6x they will clearly adopt as many common systems as possible to keep the new versions as closely related to classic 747's as possible. That's one of the strongest selling points Airbus has used to sell so many aircrafts.
The need for huge airliners might be tremendous in five years if ATC/airport congestion and traffic growth continue.
Let's remember than we are having a very hard, hard time in Europe right now!. So, although companies prefer frequent flights over crowded and concentrated flights, they might be forced to stick to the latter option in the next ten years if air congestion grows.
Hence, the manufacturer that gets the giant airliner to market earlier might get the big orders.
5-- Older technology:
Meaning sub-optimum performace compared to the A3xx or NLA, but basically on fuel burn performance only!
The question is wether the first 4 points compensate for the higher fuel compsumption of 747-the 5x/6x. Let's remember that operation costs are related to fuel effiency only on a percentatge. Then, there is financing, maintenance, crew training and other costs that might overrun fuel effiency advantatges.
So..., what's your opinion? Mine is that it makes a lot more sense to build the 747-5x/6x than a completelly new design. Fuel effiency, from my point of view, is not enough to go with a completely new design.
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (15 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1016 times:
I think Jesus has made a fair analysis and some good points. The latest Flight International has some great comments by Alan Mullaly, President of Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group and he basically says, all of these designs are great but there just is not yet a market for the A3XX or NLA and backs this up by alluding to a lack of major order interest. 5 airlines ordering 50 aircraft or 75 aircraft is not going to justify the cost or investment which Airbus now admits for the A3XX is now $12 Billion U.S. Mullaly further reiterates his belief that fractionalization of routes favoring frequency over higher capacity will continue occurring over the Pacific. I find it interesting that 747-400 announcements are few and far between as well as A340-600 orders (which now total almost 100 units). Where will all of the Boeing and Airbus large aircraft orders come from? Will there be 600-800 of these beasts ordered and if so, will it pay off for 2 competitors in such a limited field. Udo states earlier the original 747 created it's own market as it was thought to be too large at the time. He counters this though by forwarding the fractionalization argument. I know this has all been said before but I keep wondering, who will order these aircraft in numbers large enough to justify the investment?
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (15 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1015 times:
Another interesting point about fuel consumption is that the A3XX is no where near the 15% better fuel economy as Airbus said. Qantas came out with this information either late last week or early this week. They can only provide about 8% better than the 747-400. The 747-500/600 will supposedly have 10% better fuel economy or 2% better than the "New" A3XX. They will also go with the 777 type landing gear. As for tail strikes, the gear is further back so you don't have to worry.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
Twa747100 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 600 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (15 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1015 times:
1. Can't beat the best. like the org. 100's all we are doing is making it better and better till sonner or later its goin to be a totaly differnt aircraft.
2. why dosnt someone call boeing and ask them whats going on
BRING BACK THE 100'S
Pmk From United States of America, joined May 1999, 664 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (15 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1015 times:
Ever heard the story of the 100 year old Axe? Farmer has an Axe, says it 100 years old, a man asks about it. the farmer explains that the handle has been replaced three times and the head wore down too much and it was replaced 50 years back.
The similarities between the 747-100 and the 747-400 are there but they are not just the same aircraft stretched. The 747-500/600 will happen and it will work. The concept of developing a large transcontinental aircraft does not happen without much skull sweat. Boeing knows what it is doing, building the 747 is the best decision from a business standpoint.
Wingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2269 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (15 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1015 times:
Udo is right, the 747 is a 60's aircraft. So is the A3XX. Its a big tube with wings. Load it with all the technology you want, its still just a larger 744 with a full upper deck. You may get better fuel burn from a cleaner design and more fuel efficient engines, but the improvement in operating cost will be based mostly on keeping this plane completely full on every trip.
Before you hack away at this opinion, I have to admit that I took it directly from the author of the Wings magazine article on NLA concepts. To expand on it, I would say that this industry, including manufacturers and airlines are unsure when the next leap in design technology will come. Timing is always the critical issue. I think if we were exchanging these posts in 2005, the decision for Boeing to go with a large Delta wing transport would be simpler. I'm sure Airbus must be thinking along similar lines, they've played their hand and now Boeing gets to sit back and see what the market reaction is. They either play the 745/6 hand and try to take just enough orders from the A3XX to turn it into a financial disaster, or they come out within three years and say, "why doesn't everyone hold out for a couple of years after the A3XX launch, at which time we will deliver a technological revolution in transportation. I think BA and the Aisans might be willing to hold out for an 800 pax design with 25-30% less FUEL BURN that the current 747 or A3XX. Not just a design revolution, an economic revolution. The optimum hand, Boeing does both, gets a 745/6 to market three years before the A3XX , and then launches the NLA by 2010. This would be a classic squeeze play and might possibly put Airbus under. The problem, Boeing has no cash, barely enough to go with one design, let alone both. Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the boardrooms of Airbus and Boeing. They must be soiling themselves with fear at the thought of screwing this one up.