Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus NSR / Boeing B737RS Speculation  
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 14878 times:

I believe the Airbus NSR and Boeing B737RS (formerly Y1) will be larger than the A320, B737, and B757 that they will replace. I list the reasons.

1) The B787 is significantly larger than the B767 and the A350 may be significantly larger than the A330, in both cases leaving a gap at the high end of the single-aisle market.

2) There is more pressure from Embraer and Bombardier at the low end of the single-aisle market.

3) There is pressure to carry LD3s single-file in the NSR and B737RS.

4) In order to reduce turn-around times, there is pressure to make the aisle wider, thus requiring a fuselage wider than that of the A320.

I therefore speculate that the NSR and B737RS will have ovoid cross sections about 150 inches wide and about 160 inches high. Like the B787, they will be roughly egg-shaped, with the pointy end down.

I further speculate that they will each come in two families of variants: a lower MTOW family with a small wingspan that can use existing gates, a pair of two-wheel main bogeys, reduced fuel capacity, reduced range (1500nm?), and reduced CASM; and a higher MTOW family with a larger wing, a pair of four-wheel main bogeys, increased fuel capacity (in the larger wing + a center tank), and 5000nm range. Each latter family will eventually include a freighter variant. Fan diameters would be larger for the higher MTOW families than for the lighter MTOW families. Fuselage lengths might overlap.

The lower MTOW family might or might not include a 5Y fuselage without the LD3 capability, but with the same wing (probably different wingtip extensions) and systems. These could offer 2500nm range with 100-120 passengers in two classes at lower CASM than the A320 or B737NG.

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSangas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 14788 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Thread starter):
In order to reduce turn-around times, there is pressure to make the aisle wider, thus requiring a fuselage wider than that of the A320.

IIRC, hasn't Boeing patented a twin aisle, high-wing design concept for the 100-200 seat category which looks similar to the BAe-146 or C-17 to address achieving faster turn-arounds?


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 14758 times:

Quoting Sangas (Reply 1):

IIRC, hasn't Boeing patented a twin aisle, high-wing design concept for the 100-200 seat category which looks similar to the BAe-146 or C-17 to address achieving faster turn-arounds?

Yes, but don't read too much into that. Large companies patent everything they come up with that can be patented whether they think it may be useful or not.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 14705 times:

How about looking at this from WN's point of view.
One a/c seating between 120-135 ( remember the 3 f/a limit) being able to operate any route they currently fly in the US.

They currently have upwards of what (400 a/c?), and they won't be replaced overnight, so bringing new a/c into the fleet would have to be as seamless as possible. I'm not talking about certification, but the ability of the a/c to say be switched from a short flight 1-2 hours to say a transcon flight.

This ability of their B737 only fleet is one of the main reason's WN has been so successful, people tend to think this not too much of a big deal, it their niche.

I mention WN, because they will be the largest purchaser of any B737 replacement, so I think Boeing or even Aurbus will be looking at what they need / require.


User currently offlineSangas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 14690 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Thread starter):
There is pressure to carry LD3s single-file in the NSR and B737RS.

Are you proposing a design where the entire contents of the hold would be containerized in LD3s, or a hold high enough to be capable of accommodating a few single-file LD3s if necessary?


User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 14672 times:

I would predict the inside width to be around 12" wider than current so the seats could be wider by an inch + 6" more for the aisle. This width would also allow for the LD3 containers below.

You might have a point that CASM will govern so the lighter planes will only have a relatively short range. However, I think it would be more like 2,000 nM minimum, possibly 2,400. It appears that the 787-3 range precludes its versatility, would a 1,000 extra miles range there made it a good seller, it is very possible. I think the minimum range would be what Ryanair and WN want for their entire fleet.

I think it will be based on two wings, and possbly two diameters of fuses. The gear will be taller to fit the large bypass engines unless a high wing was used. One benefit with taller gear is the plane may be longer before rotation becomes an issue.

With fuel prices soaring, I think that the launch of the 737RS is within 2 years.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 14607 times:

Quoting Par13del (Reply 3):
I mention WN, because they will be the largest purchaser of any B737 replacement, so I think Boeing or even Aurbus will be looking at what they need / require.

WN are a likely launch customer. They are probably not interested in LD3 compatibility as they do not interline. However, a 66" cargo hold ceiling height would not slow down their turns. Quite the opposite.  Smile

Quoting Sangas (Reply 4):

Are you proposing a design where the entire contents of the hold would be containerized in LD3s, or a hold high enough to be capable of accommodating a few single-file LD3s if necessary?

Assuming a constant fuselage cross section (except at the nose and empenage), allowing just one LD3 to fit would allow the entire (or nearly the entire) hold to be containerized.

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 5):
I would predict the inside width to be around 12" wider than current so the seats could be wider by an inch + 6" more for the aisle.

The 150" approximate fuselage width I suggested is 6" wider than that of the A320. Another 4" or so would be available from the switch to a CFRP fuselage. So, a cabin width 10" greater than that of the A320 and 16" greater than that of the B737 is probably all we can hope for.

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 5):

With fuel prices soaring, I think that the launch of the 737RS is within 2 years.

2008 is widely expected to be the launch year, at least for the B737RS.


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 14541 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Thread starter):
I further speculate that they will each come in two families of variants: a lower MTOW family with a small wingspan that can use existing gates, a pair of two-wheel main bogeys, reduced fuel capacity, reduced range (1500nm?), and reduced CASM;

There seem to be a number of "regional" jets with this sort of capability. (RRJ is more than 70 pax, to say the least). That suggests a lot of competition from them for the low MTOW market.

My guess is if Boeing/Airbus wanted to go into this market, they would be wiser to design an airplane for it from the ground up, one that uses the least amount of fuel for the largest single expenses for such short hops (< 1500 nm) is going to be fuel and may well be more than 50% of CASM.


User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 14506 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Thread starter):
Each latter family will eventually include a freighter variant. Fan diameters would be larger for the higher MTOW families than for the lighter MTOW families. Fuselage lengths might overlap.



Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 5):
I think it will be based on two wings, and possbly two diameters of fuses.

By the sound of it, you're trying to get two different aircraft under one design. That'll bring the development costs up a lot.
Granted, the A321 has got a different wing to the A320 and the L/G isn't interchangable, but the fuselage is just more plugs in it.
A 4 wheel landing gear will bring complexity up (systems wise and depending on size, space wise) and on single aisle aircraft not really needed - see IC now going for 2 wheels instead of their original 4.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 14491 times:

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 8):
A 4 wheel landing gear will bring complexity up (systems wise and depending on size, space wise) and on single aisle aircraft not really needed - see IC now going for 2 wheels instead of their original 4.

How many wheels are need for load distribution on a B757-300 class airliner?


User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 14491 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 9):
How many wheels are need for load distribution on a B757-300 class airliner?

Probably 4 - but would a new single aisle be going for that size... NSR - New Short Range  Wink

[Edited 2006-05-14 17:22:09]

User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 583 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 14446 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6):
Assuming a constant fuselage cross section (except at the nose and empenage),

Maybe my comment belongs in Tech/Ops, but here it goes...

What are the aerodynamic efficiency losses with a constant diameter fuselage? With composite lay-ups, and the fuselage joined in sections, is it possible that the aerodynamic gains of a "curvey" fuselage might outweigh the losses in interior space? After all, how many straight lines do we see in fish or birds, some of the most extreme examples of efficiency?

I'll bet in the future we see an area ruled, curvey fuselage with no flap track fairings on the wing. In addition, I predict seat width will vary with the fuse diameter and the aisle will remain constant.

With the new construction methods, longer fuselages will be possible as well by merely adding sections of the appropriate (larger) diameter.

Comments?

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6494 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 14446 times:

I'd like a 2-2-2 seating configuration, and a 787-style interior with pivot bins. The 7J7 was intended to be 2-2-2. It should range in size from the 737-700 to the 757-200.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 14414 times:

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 11):
What are the aerodynamic efficiency losses with a constant diameter fuselage? With composite lay-ups, and the fuselage joined in sections, is it possible that the aerodynamic gains of a "curvey" fuselage might outweigh the losses in interior space? After all, how many straight lines do we see in fish or birds, some of the most extreme examples of efficiency?

That's a good point, but the interior would be a nightmare: seats, overhead bins, cargo hold. I don't think it'll happen anytime soon.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 12):
I'd like a 2-2-2 seating configuration, and a 787-style interior with pivot bins. The 7J7 was intended to be 2-2-2. It should range in size from the 737-700 to the 757-200.

One very wide aisle embarks and disembarks faster than two narrow aisles. The reason is that it is very difficult to clog a 30" aisle. Two 20" aisles would both clog.


User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 583 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 14393 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13):
but the interior would be a nightmare: seats, overhead bins, cargo hold

Agreed, but that's a problem that's solved once, on the drawing board. Once that's done, the added effeciency (assuming it's there, I don't know), pays off over the life of the airframe. It's all a trade-off, the question remains, is it worth the effort?

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently onlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1876 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 14344 times:

As there is very little details available from Airbus about their NSR project, based on what we know so far from Boeing side, I could see something like the following (I'm skipping other features previously mentioned by Zvezda, such as the undercarriage and the fuselage width).


a) short range (~2,000nm) family:
- 737RS-1 - 130 2-class pax
- 737RS-2 - 160 2-class pax
a) medium range (~3,500nm) family:
- 737RS-1 - 130 2-class pax (HGW Version of -1 mentioned above)
- 737RS-2 - 160 2-class pax (HGW Version of -2 mentioned above)
- 737RS-3 - 190 2-class pax
- 737RS-4 - 220 2-class pax
b) long range (~6,000nm) family:
- 737RS-8 - 190 2-class pax
- 737RS-9 - 220 2-class pax

Medium range family planes would have the same, or similar, wingspan to today's 737s with standard blended winglets. The -4 would address the need for transcontinental US/EU charter/Asia regional market - basically all the routes that require the extra capacity of todays domestic/regional 757-200s. -1 and -2 would probably come in "standard" and "higher gross weight" variants for the short- and medium-haul for their respective models. The "standard" range version would have a lighter structure in order to have lower CASM and would not have the extra range where it is not needed (flights within EU for example).

Long range family would get a wingspan similar to the one of 767-400, with wingtip extentions similar to those of 787-8/-9.

I doubt there would be a significant interest in anything bigger than 2-class 220 pax plane on the market, as it approaches 787-8 in size.
Look for 18' standard 6-abreast seating with LD3 single file capability in the cargo hold.

I doubt either manufacturer will go for less than 130 seats, as the lower end of mainline market basically oscillates around that number (just look at the slow sales of 737-600 and A318). anything for 110 seats and less will be made by Embraer or Sukhoi. Hate to say it, but with the lack of vision at Bombardier, I could see them being downgraded to business-jet only manufacturer... which is a shame, because I was really looking forward for them to launch C-Series  Sad



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1718 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 14319 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Thread starter):
2) There is more pressure from Embraer and Bombardier at the low end of the single-aisle market.

The result of that could be the opposite of what you suggest too. The scalability of CFRP construction could potentially allow Airbus and Boeing to build shrinks that didn't suffer from the structural inefficiencies of the A318/B736.

I would think both Airbus and Boeing would be a little nervous about future offerings from Embraer and Bombardier infringing on the lucrative A319/B73G market.

The other big factor, as you and others have noted is Southwest. Heretofore WN has shied away from anything larger that the B73G for a variety of reasons, and I don't think that's likely to change. It seems obvious that what ever else these new aircraft end up being, wider, shorter, longer, prettier, whatever, they will have to hit that WN sweet-spot.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 14275 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 11):
What are the aerodynamic efficiency losses with a constant diameter fuselage?

It's not just aerodynamics - there are considerable production inefficiencies inherent in a constantly changing "curvy" cross-section.
And before you shout "composite fuselage" at me - STOP!
Everything internal to the aircraft gets screwed up, too, from ceilings to linings, to decks, to piping and cable systems, etc, etc, and that can really dent parts standardisation and build simplicity.

In addition, you will invariably end up with a sub-optimal arrangement in the cabin, with a significantly larger amount of wasted deck space.

IMO, every "aerodynamic" load carrying vehicle (be it aircraft, cars, or (in my business) nuclear submarines ) in recent years has found that the tiny aerodynamic (hydrodynamic ?  Wink) efficiency penalty of a more uniform cross-section, is more than offset by significant advantages elsewhere, be it in production costs or efficient payload capability (like uniform passenger section).

The 773ER doesn't look like that for nothing  Smile

Quoting Zvezda (Thread starter):

Sounded pretty good to me, although I suspect the "short range" version will be longer range than you have suggested.

Regards


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 14102 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 17):
Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 11):
What are the aerodynamic efficiency losses with a constant diameter fuselage?

As I remember the constant area rule, it is really a trans-sonic effect on aircraft with delta wings, such as the F-102 and Concorde.

I just don't see airlines buying faster than .82-.85 M aircraft, as they cost more and more money to push through the air. Witness the short, glorious life of the Sonic Cruiser. And that died when oil was half the price it is today.

I agree with Astuteman that manufacturing issues will play a far more important role in the design of the next generation aircraft. Where composite will come into play is the smoothness of the finish, and the coefficient of friction.


User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 583 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 14061 times:

Arrgghhh, not enough time for a "real" reply, I gotta go get ready for "work".

I think there might still be room here, and transonic aerodynamics may still apply. As an anecdote, I have personally seen shockwaves (or rather their shadows) over the wings of 737NGs. Also, once the fit issues are solved on the drawing board, any added efficiency pays over the life of the airframe. What we don't know, is how much more efficient such a shape might be, .1, .5, 1, 2,3, 5,10%? Orders of magnitude can make a big difference! If we knew that answer, we might have a better idea whether it's worth the effort or not.

SLCPilot

PS. I think early 787 drawings depicted a curvy fuselage...



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 14054 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Thread starter):
1) The B787 is significantly larger than the B767 and the A350 may be significantly larger than the A330, in both cases leaving a gap at the high end of the single-aisle market.

Good noted, Zvezda. I believe your assumptions are correct. The 737RS and Airbus NSR would probably try to take on the lower end of the 757/767 and A330 market

Quoting Zvezda (Thread starter):
2) There is more pressure from Embraer and Bombardier at the low end of the single-aisle market.

True. but I hope that Boeing/Airbus might come up with a solution that sees the 737RS/NSR takes on the regional jets as well. Maybe a solution with two fuselage width is an ideal solution, kind of like the 757/767.

Quoting Sangas (Reply 1):
IIRC, hasn't Boeing patented a twin aisle, high-wing design concept for the 100-200 seat category which looks similar to the BAe-146 or C-17 to address achieving faster turn-arounds?

IIRC the patent showed a 90-290 seat category with 7 abreast seating. I read the patent, and the patent showed the benefit of using one fuselage from 90 seats up to almost 300. This is oposite of what I think would be a good idea for Boeing to opt for two fuselage widt. I remember that when I read about the seat range in the patent I was thinking that Boeing should have that possibility built into the 787, as that plane will be around for about 30 years or so. I know there is just a patent, and that big companies just do it for the sake of the patent.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 3):
How about looking at this from WN's point of view.
One a/c seating between 120-135 ( remember the 3 f/a limit) being able to operate any route they currently fly in the US.

That is why I think the lowest capacity 737RS will seat 149 seats unless Boeing opts to take on the regional jets as well.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 13823 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Thread starter):

Agree with the general direction A&B will probably go. The points you make seem customer / market driven which is generally the most realistic approach.

Under say 240-250 seats single aisle economies seem hard to beat. e.g. A twin aisle often requires more cabin crew. A single wider aisle could prevent some of the 753 like congestion / tunnel views.

On range I think : I think more then 3500nm is not required for the market (covers most european / middle east, US and Asia city pairs). Building in more range could harm a real efficient design (everything gets bigger / heavier).

The location of the engines is another subject. Recent studies from Boeing:
and Airbus (A305) had rear engines.

A traditional disadvantage of this used to be access for maintenance, however todays engines V2500/CFM56 prove even more reliable then expected / promised.
From a flight dynamics (one engine out requirements) point of view it's good to have them close in line with the centre of gravity. It leaves better options to create a cleaner wing / more efficient wing (flaps, fuel capasity).

I think Airbus has some options to do a NG, http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...earch/photo_search.php?id=00007055
therefor Boeing is likely to take the lead in this NB market.


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 13781 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):
Under say 240-250 seats single aisle economies seem hard to beat. e.g. A twin aisle often requires more cabin crew. A single wider aisle could prevent some of the 753 like congestion / tunnel views.

IMHO I still like the idea of a twin aisle, even though I have no other argument, than that it would seem more open. I understands that it will increase the drag of the plane. But imagine a twin aisle in the upper end A321 / 757 segment. It would be cool.  Smile

Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):
On range I think : I think more then 3500nm is not required for the market (covers most european / middle east, US and Asia city pairs). Building in more range could harm a real efficient design (everything gets bigger / heavier).

The only problem would be the lack of a true 752/762 replacements. There is more and more routes operated by the 752 transatlantic, and Continental Airlines has really pushed the range of the 752.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):
A traditional disadvantage of this used to be access for maintenance, however today engines V2500/CFM56 prove even more reliable then expected / promised.
From a flight dynamics (one engine out requirements) point of view it's good to have them close in line with the centre of gravity. It leaves better options to create a cleaner wing / more efficient wing (flaps, fuel capasity).

I have heard that the fuselage reduces the air intake on the rear mounted engines. Something like that.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13638 times:

I came across an article about what comes next after the A320 and the 737NG and thought it would be a good idea to post it in this thread as we are already are discussing the topic here rather than make a new one.

First of all the working identity at Boeing for the 737 successor is the 797.

The baseline 797 will be 150 and 180 seats.

Alan Mullally said at the Paris Airshow that it is a possibility that Boeing will do two or even three different fuselage sizes. Five abreast, six abreast and even a seven abreast.

A twin aisle has some significant advantages aside from passenger appeal. A wider cabin would allow for centerline bins for greater carry-on storage and by that speed up turn around times including deplaning from two aisles.

The most critical part is a new engine rated at 23 000 lb to 35 000 lb and noise levels of the 797 will be 26 % lower than the current 737.


From ATW May 2006 Page 51-52



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 13557 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):
A traditional disadvantage of this used to be access for maintenance, however todays engines V2500/CFM56 prove even more reliable then expected / promised.
From a flight dynamics (one engine out requirements) point of view it's good to have them close in line with the centre of gravity. It leaves better options to create a cleaner wing / more efficient wing (flaps, fuel capasity).

One downside of having both engines right next to each other is the rotorburst. In the current requirements it handily omits that one engine could take out the other (otherwise you wouldn't be able to have twins).
With them so close to each other you also have all the power supplies, hydraulics (add/omit regarding to configuration) etc being close to each other.
As the regulations now stand, you wouldn't be able to certify the curent A320 or B737.


25 ScottB : As a few others have said here, I suspect a minimum range requirement for any next generation 737/A320 replacement will be U.S. transcontinental range
26 Ken777 : I would be very surprised if Boeing hasn't been working closely with WN on the design of the 737 replacement - they'd be nuts to move forward very mu
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus And Boeing Product Strategy posted Wed Oct 25 2006 20:52:57 by Katekebo
More Private Jets Ordered From Airbus And Boeing posted Wed Oct 18 2006 16:47:20 by Manni
Suppose There Was No Airbus Or Boeing? posted Mon Sep 25 2006 03:02:02 by JAM747
Proper 757-200 Replacement In Airbus NSR Family? posted Fri Aug 18 2006 19:07:00 by 1337Delta764
Airbus And Boeing On Their Way To Iran? posted Tue Jun 6 2006 17:14:25 by PM
Forbes Airbus Vs Boeing posted Thu May 25 2006 19:59:50 by DAYflyer
Airbus & Boeing Names posted Wed May 10 2006 06:30:28 by WunalaYann
Airbus And Boeing Orders posted Wed May 10 2006 05:52:39 by Kaitak744
How Do Airbus And Boeing Get Financed? posted Thu Apr 27 2006 09:39:35 by RootsAir
Fuel Burn Of Airbus And Boeing? posted Tue Apr 25 2006 04:39:13 by MaxQ2351