Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1303 times:
According to
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/010326/n26655542_2.html
Boeing may drop the 747X in favour of their M.95 200-seater. This new plane, one must say, sounds a good deal more exiting than the 747X. A delta wing and speedier travel would be more new winds in air travel, which are always welcome. The 9000-mile range and size mean, (now assuming this is a real project and not another pr maneuver. American corporations are often dis) that Boeing is seriously betting on fragmentation.
Another thing is, if the extra speed really is enough. .95 is only 13% faster than existing designs, so Boeing's concorde metaphors are clearly out of place. The plane, though, might look extremely nice to the eye. In fact, i'd like to see some CGI pictures...
One point is that there might me a similar trend as in mobile phones - it's not the technology or efficiency as such, but the looks that count. The 380 is marketed as large, sumptuous, luxurious and "heavy" in every sense of the word (well, not the literal one obviously) and this one would be "swift", an adjective that fits pleasantly to planes. I can't imagine anyone's schedules would be affected in any way if their flight was 10% faster or slower, but it certainly makes a marketing point.
DeltaAir From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1180 times:
Boeing has said that 10 airlines have been briefed about the new aircraft and seem very interested in the new approach. More airlines are due to be briefed in the coming weeks because time is of the essence in this business. This may be a PR thing, but I seriously doubt it.
Rabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 995 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1174 times:
there is no doubt that fuel prices will tend to rise faster in the future. so fuel efficiency will become an even more important factor when we think about economical ac's
so it all depends on whether boeing's engineers are smart enough to speed up and reduce fuel burn at the same time or at least keep it at a modern twin level. if its not going to be very fuel efficient, its going to be the 21's century concorde.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2669 posts, RR: 59 Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1170 times:
IMO, this aircraft has the potential to really change the industry as long as they can keep the operational costs down, so that any increase can be off-set by the crew and fleet utilization advantages this aircraft could have. However, this plane will really live or die depending on how well Boeing and/or Lockheed can develop and implement their planned overhauls to the ATC system.
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9705 posts, RR: 10 Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1162 times:
This project is interesting, but according to Boeing its targeted to replace the 757/767 and its size from 200 to up to 350 seats even might make it a competitor to the 777-200.
In no means its meant to kill the 747X-project.
GOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1145 times:
I think Boeing will look on this more and drop the 747X. As the orders for A380 is soaring away the 747X looks more and more like it will be drooped ( but if lufthansa or another carrier comes up with an order for 100 aircrafts they might change there minds. ). Boeing needs to look on something completely new to compete with Airbus now. Today Airbus looks like the aircraft manufacter No.1 of the 21st century, but Boeing can still change that.
GOT
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
Early Air From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 611 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1113 times:
I would rather see the 747X than this new thing, but I think it would be best for them to go faster.
JETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 32 Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1071 times:
The jetliner in subject will not be transonic it will be subsonic.
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1045 times:
JETPILOT,
transonic just means "of or relating to aerodynamic flow or flight conditions at speeds close to the speed of sound", not necessarily supersonic.
There is no way fuel burn in a M.95 can match the fuel burn in a modern jetliner at M.8, but the faster plane might have some other cost-saving issues. For instance, since it's faster it might be able to make 10% more flights per year, if scheduling allows for that. It's maintenance might be faster and/or cheaper, although how that would happen is entirely open - one would assume its maintenance would be more demanding, not less.
Flying "9000 miles" (nautical, regular, imperial, common or Boeing) it probably would have enough range for Singapore-US flights to target a business audience (since it would cost a lot per seat anyway, flying 200 people such a long distance). This is the first Boeing product (or brochure at least) that really sounds innovative since 747.
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3996 posts, RR: 36 Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1034 times:
In reference to the title, nearly every airliner today is technically transonic, as transonic flight is normally considered to be between Mach .75 up to but not including Mach 1.
JETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 32 Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1030 times:
KAZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 19 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1022 times:
Boeing really are clutching at straws here. M.95 will make no difference to airline scheduling whatsoever. The only selling point would be reduced fuel burn and maintenance costs and this is not going to happen. Personally I think this is just a smoke screen from boeing to delay A380 orders whilst they hold crisis talks about how to arrest the balance of power which is shifting to Airbus in the 21st century.
Personally I would hate blended wings because after the first few rows you can only see the sky out of the windows. This makes for a very boaring flight for poorer passengers.
B744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1018 times:
there is no way 0.95M liner can do more flights than 0.8M one.
aircraft is scheduled on DAILY basis. if you want to make more flights it means you should have 2 or 3 hours available per day to make one additional shorthaul return flight. assuming turnaround time for 200-seater is one hour, you will never get 2-3 hours timeframe per day for additonal flight.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 995 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, 
). Boeing needs to look on something completely new to compete with Airbus now. Today Airbus looks like the aircraft manufacter No.1 of the 21st century, but Boeing can still change that.
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 1081 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 19 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
