Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Yellowstone Great News  
User currently offline#-B777-# From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2610 times:

Look to the boeing site! its an incredible new design, i cant find any more words for this awesome bird..

just look to the latest news releases..

76 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 1, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2310 times:

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2001/q1/news_release_010329a.html


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 2, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2261 times:

I'd bet that this is probably the transition aircraft between the "7" series and the B.W.B.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineTeahan From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 5293 posts, RR: 61
Reply 3, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2263 times:

Hey,



What do you think? I need to digest it!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Kind Regards,
Jeremiah Teahan



Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
User currently offlineAlitis From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2248 times:

The tail looks very much like the SR-71!

User currently offlineMandargb From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2223 times:

Yep,
For last couple of days there had talks on the net about this. Looks like finally the new is out from Boeing.

This picture and the news resembles the talks that were on.

They were something like this
0.95 Mach, delta winged.


Bye the way from schematic it looks like 2 engined : so can we guess about 300 PAX or less?

This long range means we will have across globe (half way across the world) flights in about 15 hours?

Also wings look to too much on the aft side of the fuselag.
Will this be a issue of wing strike on takeoff / landing?

May be this is just the artists's rendering of the concept.

News is very exciting though.
Regards.


User currently offlineTeahan From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 5293 posts, RR: 61
Reply 6, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2207 times:

Hey,

After looking at it and digesting it for a few more minutes, I came to a few more conclusions:

-- It looks more like a starship than a plane.
-- I definitely can see it on longhaul flights but I have very serious doubts about seeing it on very short hops the B757/B767 is often used for. Neither can I see your average A330 charter passenger airline using it.
-- With a capacity of 300, I could see it replaceing B777s on longhaul flights.

Kind Regards,
Jeremiah Teahan



Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
User currently offlineVoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2060 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2195 times:

Some press reports have Boeing saying the development costs will be 9 billion (less than A380 and only ~2x as much as deriving the 747X from the 747.)
Excuse my scepticism at this but Boeing has done this before with the 2707 in the `60s.
Good luck Boeing but I wouldn't be surpised if this is a big disinformation ploy or attempt at raising share `value' before Mullaly, Condit et al bail out of their stocks, and the company.



` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlineWidebody From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2197 times:

Ultra Long Range aircraft with 100-300 pax? As Teahan said, are they not eating into the 777 market?

User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4189 posts, RR: 37
Reply 9, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2195 times:

All i can say is wow.... thats amazing... I cant wait to see what comes of this. It looks that the engine intakes are on the underside of the wing from this rendering.


Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7758 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2177 times:

From the looks of it I like it a lot. The concept really does fit well into Boeing's idea of "Shrinking the world." I see this a being much more of a revolutionary design as opposed to the A380's evolutionary approach. As for cost I think that the Yellowstone may actually be a bigger gamble than the A380.

I think it has a lot of promise... I just wonder how long it will take to get it from the artists rendition to a flying prototype.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineJumboClassic From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2174 times:

What about the Tu-144 style canards? That explains why Boeing was part of a test program involving a Tu-144 back in 1997, together with MDD and Tupolev. I have always wondered why they chose the russian Tupolev, and not the Concorde for the supersonic testing. Well, there is one thing that Concorde doesn't have - canards!

User currently offlineTeahan From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 5293 posts, RR: 61
Reply 12, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2147 times:

Hey,

I know that this is just a pure sketch and that they are miles from the final design if there is one. Just how on earth will the jetway reach door 1 with those canards?

Anyway here are the comments of the ILFC CEO on the new plane:

Los Angeles, March 29 (Bloomberg) -- John Plueger, chief operating officer of International Lease Finance Corp., comments on Boeing's potential development of a new aircraft that could fly at close to the speed of sound.

"It's an interesting concept. If you can whack an hour off going from Los Angeles to New York, then that's significant. If you can shave three hours off going from Los Angeles to Singapore, that's significant.''

"What it comes down to, as anything else, is the price. If airlines can have lower trip and lower seat-mile costs, primarily because of the fuel savings, and Boeing can produce it cheaply enough, it ought to go well.''

"Technologically, we need to see a little bit more understanding of how they're going to make it work. You get these Mach buffets and other phenomena at that speed. Presumably this would be a high-altitude airplane. It would fly routinely about 45,000 feet. That would be absolutely critical in order to avoid as much as possible the air infrastructure.''

"The fact they're coming up with this new high-speed airplane shows that they're trying to think outside the box. The criticism of Boeing has been, 'All your products are aging and all you're doing is making derivatives of the same basic products.' Granted, the derivatives are in many cases greatly improved, but a 767-400 is still a 767, and a 757-300 is still a 757. Even the next-generation 737 is based upon a design that's now 25 years old.''

"Boeing was right when they said there's not room for two A380s. The fact is, Airbus decided it was going to build the A380, not Boeing. In that large, big-jet size, there probably is only room for one provider -- and Airbus decided they wanted it, and Boeing decided it was too much risk.''

"The only airplane Boeing has produced in the last 15 years that's been a clean sheet of paper design from day one is the 777, and it's their best-selling widebody. In fact it's the real success in the Boeing product line. Boeing is perfectly capable of building an excellent airplane that can leapfrog technology, be state of the art and in demand. I think that's what they're trying to do on this high-speed, high-altitude airplane.''


KInd Regards,
Jeremiah Teahan



Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
User currently offlineSamurai 777 From Canada, joined Jan 2000, 2458 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

Holy cow!

This is a cool-looking pic of the new plane! It is a very exciting time, that's for sure, but I have a feeling that costs may be greater than the A380 due to the newer technology and design. It smacks suspisciously of a revival of the Boeing 2707 project, which got axed in 1971 over concerns about noise, sonic boom and pollution.

If this thing's going to be able to go faster than Mach 0.95, then that means a potential sonic boom problem and so the craft will not be allowed to do that unless it goes over the Pacific, the Atlantic Ocean or the Arctic Ocean (on polar routes).

Hopefully, Boeing can make it quiet enough at takeoff and landing to meet Stage IV noise requirements as promised.

About range, it's well known that manufacturers often exaggerate claims about the ranges of their a/c, I'm not sure about this. If the new plane can really go at least 16,000 km, then this will be great for nonstop routes like JFK-SYD or LHR-HKG. The plane would most likely be used for long intercontinental routes. Transcon routes might not be likely, mainly due to worries over sonic booms.

The plane looks like a widebody, probably about the same width as the 767 (maybe a 2-3-2 or 2-2-2 seating in economy?), given how fat it looks in the artists rendering.

I wonder which airlines will be interested in it? Most likely, they will be airlines that currently operate very long-range routes, such as: Qantas, Singapore, JAL, BA and UAL.


User currently offlineBoeingrulz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 465 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2123 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Adding to Samurai's list of customers. This craft is way to sexy to not catch Branson's eye!

Carolyn


User currently offlineWN boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2100 times:

If I may ask a dumb question, how would a jetway pull up to the door with those canards sticking out?

And another dumb question relating to the SR-71 comment made earlier: inasmuch as the SR-71 is known for ultra-high altitude (approx. FL 8000), is there an altitude above which you would not hear a sonic boom on the ground? Could Yellowstone fly supersonic at a high enough altitude without the sound effects that got the Concorde banned over the United States?


User currently offlineTeahan From Germany, joined Nov 1999, 5293 posts, RR: 61
Reply 16, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2087 times:

Hey,

WNBoy, about supersonic etc..., special engines must be developed to make it go supersonic, and that costs huge sums of money and increases fuel comsumption. IF (a BIG if), we see this plane, it certainly won't be supersonic!

Kind Regards,
Jeremiah Teahan



Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
User currently offline777x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2086 times:

Sonic booms will travel varying distances depending on many factors, but if the boom is small enough, and the a/c is high enough, the shockwave won't reach the ground.

I would imagine that any sonic boom created by such a craft would be small as most of the airframe would be subsonic, with only a minority in the transsonic/supersonic range.

rgds
777x


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7965 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2062 times:

After seeing the picture of the Yellowstone proposal, I have only one thing to say:

EE-YOW!  Wow!

They were right when this plane was going to have a pretty radical design. It looks like something out of a science fiction novel or some hair-brained idea you would see in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics magazines from the 1950's to early 1970's.

If the plane seats about 275-300 passengers, maybe Boeing ought make this as the 767-400/777-200 replacement after 2011.

I can just see the eye-opening looks from observers at airports after 2013 when it enters service. The most likely airlines to order this plane? Try AA, CO, DL, and UA.


User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2185 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2043 times:

Another question to consider is whether Boeing can upgrade this fuselage when new engine technology is available to make it a true long-range SST. If so, the case seems very strong. Get a jump start on the mnaufacturing technology and offer an interim .95 jet and then use the same basic design to go for an SST. They cede the VLA market but perhaps get a critical jump start on a truly revolutionary leap in air travel. Airbus will only be able to come up with so many 12-18 blliion dollar projects over the next 20 years. Looks like they are each staking out their turf.

User currently offlineOz777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

I think that Boeing is further down the track with this design than we think.

They have been researching the proposal for over three years and all their airline "questions" that they have been putting to operators over that time points to the new aircraft.

Dont expect it to be flying LAX-SFO - with the range quoted as it is, the Boeing forecast of greater point - to - point intercontinental/international operations fits nicely with this design.

The A380 will end up a hub aircraft, the proposed Boeing design will cut down the need for international hubs by providing direct routes and far quicker transit times.

The option may be fly QF on the A380 SYD-LAX and take 15 hours or the AN Boeing 808 and take 10. Guess what will have more appeal. (Remember the most and consistently profitable airline in the US keeps away from hubs). Perhaps that is really what passengers want.

Expect to see the first 808 in 2006, after a 30 + 30 aircraft commitment from a large (non US) carrier.

OZ777


User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1974 times:

Think Boeing realized a very important fact: The airplane market is growing so fast that it's not any good to start a war. So while airbus concentrates on the hub-hub market with the A380, Boeing takes the 'bypass' market with this aircraft. I do not think that an airline which has already the A380 on order will also order this one right away, it would be a little risky....
I really hope to see it fly quickly, be most likely not before 2009


User currently offlineOz777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1974 times:

I think that Boeing is further down the track with this design than we think.

They have been researching the proposal for over three years and all their airline "questions" that they have been putting to operators over that time points to the new aircraft.

Dont expect it to be flying LAX-SFO - with the range quoted as it is, the Boeing forecast of greater point - to - point intercontinental/international operations fits nicely with this design.

The A380 will end up a hub aircraft, the proposed Boeing design will cut down the need for international hubs by providing direct routes and far quicker transit times.

The option may be fly QF on the A380 SYD-LAX and take 15 hours or the AN Boeing 808 and take 10. Guess what will have more appeal. (Remember the most and consistently profitable airline in the US keeps away from hubs). Perhaps that is really what passengers want.

Expect to see the first 808 in 2006, after a 30 + 30 aircraft commitment from a large (non US) carrier.

OZ777


User currently offlineFly-By-Pilot From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1964 times:

Why not go all the way and put on a supersonic friendly nose and afterburners. Where are the intakes? Are they below or does the top open douring takeoff. I think this is the future not that unnecessary A380. What happens to the 777LR? Boeing needs to give us more answers because this is the coolest thing since the Concorde.

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7965 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1965 times:

I think the Yellowstone project could be a huge boon for Boeing.

Remember, the plane is designed to reduce flight times at a rate of 60 minutes/3,000 statute miles compared to a 777-200. This could make it possible to cut flying times on really long routes like SFO-HKG as much as three hours.

I envision the following airlines lining up to buy the plane:

American Airlines (AA)
British Airways (BA)
China Eastern Airlines (MU)
China Southern Airlines (CZ)
Continental Airlines (CO)
Delta Airlines (DL)
South African Airways (SA)
United Airlines (UA)
VARIG Brazilian Airlines (RG)

If these airlines give strong interest to the plane, I won't be surprised Boeing gives the go-ahead at the upcoming 2001 Paris Air Show and officially designates the plane the Boeing 787.



25 Na : Although I don´t believe in this project to be a real threat for the Jumbo-sized long-haul airplanes its almost sure this will be a cannibal mainly f
26 Post contains images Airsicknessbag : I have to agree with Na: this a/c will never be built. It would burn twice the amount of fuel of a standard plane, but you´d gain only a speed increa
27 Voodoo : To be fair, even Airbus' Leahey thinks the fuelburn will be 40% higher. So even if his anti-marketing is exagerrating by a factor of 100% then Boeings
28 Post contains images Airsicknessbag : Well, I have that 100% more fuel burn from today´s WSJE as well, and I think if they´re biased it would be certainly PRO Boeing. Daniel
29 KRP : Nice try Boeing. But this will not stop the Airbus buying spree the world sees at the moment. The plane is downright ugly, will have very limited pass
30 Voodoo : Interesting. Whether its Leahey quoting WSJE or vice versa, it does look like a greater fuel burn could kill Yellowstone in the end. If it were -consi
31 Post contains images United Airline : Can't wait to see!
32 Aduum : I think im gonna agree with KRP. It looks like a bit of a rushed design to attract attention. Just what it has done. So if thats what Boeing intended
33 Voodoo : It has attracted attention in the same way a concept car at a car show can. But airliners are not cars with a very shallow image-consumer relationship
34 RayChuang : Folks, I have news for all of you. Boeing would never seriously consider this project if the fuel burn on a seat-mile basis is going to be way higher
35 B757300 : Lets me ask all of the detractors of this aircraft a question. Do any of you possess a degree in aerospace engineering or can you see 20 years into th
36 Sabenapilot : A very nice drawing I must say, but then that's all it is. Let's all be fair, we have all seen tens of such futuristic drawings from Boeing, Airbus an
37 B757300 : I bet if Airbus was proposing this, all the Boeing detractors would be drooling over it and saying how great is would be and how it would cause the de
38 Post contains images Pilot1113 : We all agree that the modern airliner is going to have to undergo a major change in the future and by someone. Why can't it be Boeing and why can't it
39 Hkgspotter1 : Hey its Thunderbird 10 !!!
40 Skybutt : Doesn't it look like a catfish?
41 Sea_Tac2000 : I agree with B757300. Did anyone see the show 'Inventors' on this subject on Discovery Wings last night? Very intersting! Oz777 is correct in saying t
42 Cwapilot : Some of you guys are being rediculous. Since when has the A380 suddenly become the center of the aviation universe? Have you ever heard the phrase "It
43 777x : Well said Cwapilot!
44 N312RC : WN Boy, As I read down, I didnt see anyone answer your question about the canards and the jetway. If someone did, please disregard this post. Like on
45 Widebody : As with all you A380 know-all's CWAPilot, I'll ask you to list some of these add-on technologies that you mention......and for Christ sakes don't give
46 Flaps : 20%, 40%, 100% greater fuel burn????? Could just one of you people cite your sources for these fuel burn estimates? Have any of you studied aerodynami
47 Voodoo : Uh the press releases have already mentioned Boeing saying that the `fuel burn would be higher'. And Boeing talks of a 2007 entry date..not 20 years i
48 Widebody : The extra fuel burn will probably be cancelled out by the reduced journey time.....the question is how economic the engines will be operating at the h
49 Cwapilot : New nav system, new hydraulic system, new fuselage skin.....etc, etc....if you would have taken the time to read, you would notice I was not bashing e
50 Widebody : Apologies CWAPilot, I've had a few arguements recently where the the main point has been that the A380 is nothing new because it doesn't look new.....
51 Post contains images RIX : "This plane is just another cover from Popular Mechanics magazine" - well done, Popular Mechanics!
52 Sabenapilot : It look like we're back in time 30 years. I hope you can all remember the situation then: Boeing launched the B747 Aerospaciale and BAe introduced the
53 Post contains images RIX : let Boeing come up with a real flying version of this drawing - of course, as well as let A380 make its first flight. It look like we're back in time
54 Cwapilot : Boeing Details 'Sonic Cruiser' By Sean Broderick 29-Mar-2001 5:18 PM U.S. EST Guided by input from potential customers, Boeing is re-focusing its new-
55 Fly-By-Pilot : Airlines told him that the current 747s "were big enough" and that their need for a 500-plus-seat jet, like the stretch 747X, was not as great as thei
56 Joni : Cwapilot, You wrote that the 380 is only ecolutionary and the M.95 plane revolutionary. However, the M-95 plane flies 15% faster than present planes,
57 Post contains images Teahan : Hey, Here is another picture of it from the Seattle Post: Kind Regards, Jeremiah Teahan
58 Republic : Hi, 03/29/2001 - Updated 09:47 PM ET Q & A with Boeing's Alan Mulally Alan Mulally, chief executive of the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, discussed
59 Boeing nut : People, Boeing has got to have someting impressive up thier sleeve. We haven't heard the whole story here by any means. Stay tuned.
60 Voodoo : >People, Boeing has got to have someting impressive >up thier sleeve. We haven't heard the whole story >here by any means. Stay tuned. Yes...its calle
61 Wingman : I questioned a while back whether Boeing was pushing the 747X just to make the initial sales of the 380 unprofitable. I was probably giving Boeing man
62 Boeing nut : Maybe so Voodoo, but I don't think so. I think Airbus is asking themselves, "what the heck just happened?".
63 Sabenapilot : Anyone noticed how unspecific the design is? pax: 100 - 300 (so from B717 to B777) dimentions: not even elaborated. fuselage: composite (more then on
64 Beckaru : I've searched the Boeing site, the links provided here, and nowhere do I see any reference to the name "Yellowstone." Where did you find this?
65 Post contains images Sabenapilot : OK, so maybe this is a stupid question, but it's just to illustrate how well designed the Boeing Yellowstone project is. How are you going to park thi
66 Joni : Sabenapilot, I don't know if anyone's claimed the Yellowstone would fly cheaper than a 380 - it probably will be more expensive to fly than present p
67 Voodoo : I suspect the Boeingcorde's canards will be the first thing to go from this `concept'. The almost totally conventional 777 design started off with a m
68 Sabenapilot : Sorry Joni, I ment development costs. According to Boeing: "...development costs will be kept down by applying existing design and manufacturing techn
69 Qantas744 : I agree entirely with Hkgspotter....there was an episode of 'Thunderbirds' which hd a plane in it that looked uncannily similar to this retro fantasy
70 Post contains links and images AirNova : Looks very similar to Beech Starship only bigger and with jet engines. Click for large versionPhoto © Flemming K. Fogh
71 Republic : It is really enlightining to read some of these posts. Such bitter people! If you are a true aviation fan, you would welcome the 20XX, and wish for it
72 TurbineBeaver : The nose cone area reminds me of the MD11 and the tail of the SR71 blackbird. TB
73 Voodoo : The 747X wasn't a bluff to get the A380 price lowered. Maybe Boeing does insult its prospective customers that way, but history notes that Boeing had
74 Samurai 777 : If Boeing does launch the new 20XX plane, the final design may actually differ, but probably not too radically. You have to understand that this is on
75 Prebennorholm : I just wonder if somebody knows... Because I haven't seen any information about this: What are they gonna do with that canard (front) wing when they p
76 Sabenapilot : Some theory right out of the books: A dubble shaped delta (like on the Yellowstone) is per defenition a poor aerodynamical solution. Every dubble shap
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...
Great News For Oregon Airshow Fans! posted Fri Nov 17 2006 15:48:46 by KPDX
Boeing 787: Great Aircraft, Not Game Changer V2 posted Mon Mar 20 2006 20:23:34 by LTU932
Condor Offers Marseille-Munich! Great News! posted Wed Feb 1 2006 04:55:08 by Beaucaire
Boeing Yellowstone Project posted Fri Nov 4 2005 10:56:54 by Okees
Acela Gone, Great News For Shuttles?!?! posted Thu Apr 21 2005 00:17:53 by JFKLGANYC
Boeing 747 Advanced News... posted Thu Jan 27 2005 18:20:57 by Bhill
Great News For Bournemouth posted Thu Oct 14 2004 22:09:33 by EGHHWizard
Great News For GOL Airlines posted Fri Jun 25 2004 03:57:02 by Jeff32
What Was Boeing's Yellowstone Project Technology? posted Thu May 20 2004 13:06:40 by Voodoo
Great News For UA! Senate Approves Pension Relief! posted Fri Apr 9 2004 08:21:20 by Mattnrsa