Teahan From Ireland, joined Nov 1999, 5351 posts, RR: 60 Posted (14 years 6 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1336 times:
I spent a bit of time looking through old flight internationals this afternoon. One interesting article I found was from my September 1996 4th-10th issue. It had an interesting article about the B747 700X. I am sure most of you remember the 500X and 600X project which failed because of lack of customer demand and rising costs. The one part I never remembered was the 700X
-- 650 Seats in 3 Classes
-- Same wing, undercarriage and engines as the 500X and 600X.
-- Availible early 2007
-- Short Range Bulk Carrier
Coboeing777 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 693 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (14 years 6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1255 times:
hey teahan, if you knew how to read, maybe you would have read that Boeing747-400 said" no offence airbus fans, just my opinion" So, why you gonna knock the guy? geez. You must be one of those people who doesnt mind other peoples' opinions, just as long as they agree with you. ok, sorry that i got off topic, just that that post irritated me.
OK, we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6889 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (14 years 6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1226 times:
What first of all makes the A380 look a little weird is the low flight deck on the lower floor. It is very practical when it comes to landing the aircraft that the pilots sit as low as possible. But it is not practical for fitting a front loading cargo door as on some 747Fs.
This 747-700X or NLA proposal has the flight deck on 2nd floor as all other 747s. And maybe its designers were also thinking about fitting a front door on a cargo version.
The A380 nose looks "wrong" simply because it is the only plane with another deck above the flight deck. But for those of us, who think that all well thought out functionality is beautiful, the A380 is a beautiful bird.
Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
Airbus A380 From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (14 years 6 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1208 times:
I've also read in a book about Monster Machines, and in one chapter, they describe about Boeing's NLA, McDonnell Douglas' NLA and Airbus' NLA. The Boeing's version of the NLA was called B747-SDD-X, SDD stands for Super Double Decker. The MD's version of the NLA was called the MD-12X and the Airbus' version, well, you should know it.
However, the 747-SDD-X I saw in that book, has a nose of the original 747, but the -700X doesn't.
About the "rumoured" A vs B in this forum, I have only this to say. The -700X has its own aesthetic features and the A380 has its own aesthetic features. Although I prefer A380, I do still love the 747-500X/600X and the NLA 747-700X to become a reality. Each aircraft has its own "beauty from within".
Citation X From Malaysia, joined Feb 2001, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1191 times:
Yeah, I read something about the B747-700X. I thought it was a widened B747-600X. In "Aircraft Illustrated November 1996" there was an article titled "Battle of the Super Jumbos". It didn't mention a double decker and stated that the B747-700X would have:
"Neverhteless, the fact that Boeing is pushing this third member of the extended B747 family, suggests that the US manufacturer is worried about the A3XX - and specifically the A3XX-200.....Boeing is nervous about full double-deckers, but does not explain quite why - and will have an approximately 1.5m wider fuselage, permitting an additional seat on either side. Entry into service would be around 2007."
Oxygen From Hong Kong, joined Sep 1999, 675 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1178 times:
The NLA proposal is so ugly, I am glad that they didn't build it.
For all those Boeing fans here, while Boeing747-400 was giving his opinions here, Teahan is ALSO giving his opinions here. So why can't Teahan think that Boeing747-400 is starting a war while Boeing747-400 can think that the NLA looks better than the A380 ?
Sndp From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 553 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1176 times:
The 747-700X I read about was indeed also a sort of 747 kind of aircraft, so no full ouble decker, but with one or two more seats per row, so a wider fuselage. IT would have a lot of commonality with the existing 747s.
DatamanA340 From South Korea, joined Dec 2000, 547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1161 times:
Boeing747-400: I don't think you flamed such A vs B. But if my memory serves well, NLA was not different so from 380. (I've seen NLA model in U.S. space in Expo 93 and I thought this project name was 2707, but because it was complete double-decker it was NLA.) So for what did you think NLA was looked better?
Preben: We're looking another plane that has deck over flight deck: Super Transporter.
RIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1788 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (14 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1147 times:
"Teahan is ALSO giving his opinions here" - yes, but he was personally offensive (the word "stupid" is enough to say this). While Boeing747-400 only said something that was said plenty of times here ("Which is the nicest aircraft" appears here almost once a week). BTW, your "the NLA proposal is so ugly" without at least "seems to me" is much closer to be commented as "obviously posted to start a war!" .
"What first of all makes the A380 look a little weird is the low flight deck on the lower floor." - agree 100% with Preben. For me it even looks not "little" but "very" weird, but it's all subjective, and who cares of it now when Boeing NLA is in the same place as Boeing 2707 while A380 has more than 60 orders...