N863DA From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 48 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (15 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1949 times:
First off, let me start by saying that this MUST NOT Become any sort of A vs. B post. and I am just going to point out some facts.
The basic airframe design of the 747, no matter how much you modify it, is 1960s design. Whether this is a good thing or not is subjective, but the basic technology was designed in the 1960s. (likewise, the 737 is basically a 1960s airframe, and the 75 & 76 are essentially 70's technology) - Now I agree that this proves that it is tried and tested. But the Airbus will be designed as a totally new airframe from scratch, allowing radical differences from other, older designs.
Also, (will the 747X be FBW?) the A3XX will be fly-by-wire (obviously) and made of a lot of composite materials. The 747X will have some composites, but not as much as the A3XX, making the A3XX pound for pound lighter.
Both aircraft will have their good points and bad points. I am not getting involved as to which might be better. I am just pointing out some facts.
F4N From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (15 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1921 times:
To all: Thanks for the information. I have to say however, that the point of this post is to gain better insight into what constitutes A3XX vis a vis 747X technology wise from people who are more knowledgeable about this than I, NOT to start an A vs B thing; that sort of ugly business is currently making the rounds in another thread. I don't participate in that nor do I intend to promulgate it.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30263 posts, RR: 57
Reply 5, posted (15 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1901 times:
I hate to say it but it the true reality is that there isn't a lot of new stuff in any airplane.
Just about all advances can be traced back to the start of flying. There is noting new in Aviation just revamping of the old stuff.
The main reason is that airplane or any for that matter is still going to have to meet the same airworthyness standards as its predesessors. They may become lighter or burn less gas but they still are built to the same specs. Be it JAR or FAA or one of the other governing bodies.
The basic metal airplane structure really hasn't changed since Jugo Junkers built his first fighter prototypes during the war.....And when I say way I mean the first one.
Autopilot, Fly by wire, The first autopilot was successfully flown on a Curtis(1 s or 2?) Flying boat before the war.
Canard wings, Come-on the Wright Flying was a canard. Flying wings, There was at least one the British where tying out before the war.
Don't forget the first working turbine engines came along at the end of the 19th century.
Composites.....Remember that there has been a big push for alternative materials during wars. So even during the first war there where aircraft that where being designed with composite structures. The brits again had a fighter that could be shot off of freighters that was built of this stuff. Bakelite has been around forever. Shoot anybody remember the Goodyear Inflate-a-plane of the 1950's.
I am not shooting down anybody in particular but remember in Aviation Nothing Is New!!!!!
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Widebody From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (15 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1842 times:
..I saw an article on what the 3XX cockpit will contain, and some of the new systems are really incredible.....especially that terrain mapping gismo, just like is used in the military aircraft......literally the aircraft knows every single solitary part of the world....