Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 -v- MD12  
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12472 posts, RR: 37
Posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 45630 times:

Some time ago, we had a thread about how things might have been different for McDD; what if the MD12 had gone ahead, what if the planned twin version of the DC10 had gone ahead, what if the MD11 ended up on its back slightly less often, etc etc.

Quite by accident, I came across a copy of the 1994/95 Jane's All the World's aircraft, which has a description of the MD11, planned dimensions etc and I thought it might be interesting to compare them.

Physically, the two aircraft look remarkably similar (or at least the Jane's artist's impression looks very like the A380 that we now know and love.

The MD12 is shorter (63.4m -v- 73m) and its wingspan is a good 15m less (64.9m vs. 79.7) it's tail is about 1.5m shorter as well, BUT it's cabin width was going to be nearly 3' wider (24'3" -v- 21'6"). Its OEW was going to be about 90,000kgs less (187,000 kgs -v- 276,000kgs) and its MTOW, 130,000kgs less (430k -v- 560k), so the MD12 was intended to be closer in size to the current 744, although clearly McDD would have anticipated a stretched model at some stage.
It was also planned to have cockpit commonality with the MD11.

McDonnell Douglas anticipated a three class pax layout of about 511 pax in three classes.

The design range was to have been 9,200mi for the LR model (with full payload). Of course, on the flip side of the page, the MD11's planned range was 7,810mi with a full payload ... and that didn't quite pan out.

It is sad, of course, that it didn't come to light, or that Boeing didn't run with it. They could have tweaked it a bit and who knows how things might have ended up.

147 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFoxecho From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 747 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 45612 times:




..uh, we'll need that to live......
User currently offlineEL-AL From Israel, joined Oct 2001, 1312 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 45437 times:

This a/c had no chance even if MD was still around. MD could not afford itself to build brand new airplane from nothing, and as we can see from the sales of the A380 such a large plane isn't best seller.

I believe that eventually a starched version of the MD-11 was MD's new large plane, I think there was planing in progress for that.



"In our country, those who do not believe in miracles are irrational" - David Ben Gurion.
User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7379 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 45376 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting EL-AL (Reply 3):
as we can see from the sales of the A380 such a large plane isn't best seller

But we are only at the beginning of the A380s life. If the MD12 has been launched, it probably would have been coming into service around 2001....and if it did exist, whether Airbus would have decided that their planned A3XX would have been worth risking a launch is something to debate.


User currently offlineCptRegionalJet From Germany, joined Oct 2007, 123 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 45127 times:

2001 would have beeen a bad time ,though...

User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 45101 times:

I find the performance claims hard to believe. They were going to pack 100 more passengers into an aircraft only 35 t heavier than a 747-400, *and* beat the 747-400's range, while using essentially the same class of engines, and with a wing the size of an A340 wing?

[Edited 2010-01-02 11:47:27]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 45090 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting David_itl (Reply 4):
If the MD12 has been launched, it probably would have been coming into service around 2001....and if it did exist, whether Airbus would have decided that their planned A3XX would have been worth risking a launch is something to debate.

I expect McD launching the MD-12 would have forced Boeing's hand to get the 747-X into production. And at that point, Airbus would likely have felt forced to launch the A3XX/A380.

In the end, the A380 still would have been the best of the three, but I expect the VLA market would have fragmented to the detriment of all three manufacturers.


User currently offlineFlySSC From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 7412 posts, RR: 57
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 45073 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Thread starter):
The MD12 is shorter (63.4m -v- 73m) and its wingspan is a good 15m less (64.9m vs. 79.7) it's tail is about 1.5m

Comparing the A380 to the MD12 is like comparing Concorde to the B2707 ...

The MD12 is nothing as it never left a paper board ...

We can't hardly compare an aircraft produced, and flying commercially with a project that didn't even reach the stage of a mockup... even if there is an obvious "physical" ressemblance betwen the two.
The A380 today is itself quite different from the original project A3XX...


User currently offlineN776AU From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 762 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 44661 times:



Quoting EL-AL (Reply 2):
I believe that eventually a starched version of the MD-11 was MD's new large plane, I think there was planing in progress for that.

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/6657/proposedmdxxmd12trijet.jpg
A pretty attractive plane if I do say so myself.



Careful, Doors Are Closing And Will Not Reopen. Please Wait For The Next Train
User currently offlineCarls From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 42528 times:



Quoting N776AU (Reply 8):

The big problem for McDD was the negative of Airbus to partnership with them. They were looking to put the A330/340 wings in their MD 11 to improve the range. They couldn't reach an agreement about which brand should remain, the FBW, technology and etc. After this McDD ended in Boeing arms.


User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 41705 times:

There is a parallel here from the late 60s. Airbus came into being in the first place due to a gap in the product lines from the big three US manufactures. Boeing had the 747 coming, Douglas and Lockheed had their tri-jets coming. So Airbus picked a section of the market no one was building for, a large twin jet with mid range capability. They believed the market could only sustain one four engine and one three engine. If either Douglas or Lockheed had simply dropped back and built a twin instead of the tri-jet Airbus may have never happened and both may still be in the commercal jet business. That said, If somehow the MD-12 had been launched then the A380 may not have been. The 747-8 if launched before the A380 could also have been too much. But at that time the -400 was too new to bother with a replacement.
That market segment probably can't sustain two products. The people choosing what aircraft to bring to market don't operate on pride. They do research and then have to make a leap of faith at some point. Boeing has bet the company more than once and won pretty big.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 41021 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
I expect McD launching the MD-12 would have forced Boeing's hand to get the 747-X into production. And at that point, Airbus would likely have felt forced to launch the A3XX/A380.

That would have caused a situation where all three would have lost vast sums of money.

Quoting EL-AL (Reply 2):
I believe that eventually a starched version of the MD-11 was MD's new large plane, I think there was planing in progress for that.

There was, but the MD-11 itself was flawed from the outset. It should have shown up by the mid 80s, not the 90s. Had McDonnell Douglas done that, the MD-11 (or DC-10 Super 60) would have been a greater success. As it is, they were too late and when the MD-11 arrived, it didn't deliver.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8522 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 40847 times:

The MD 12 double decker project needed help from the Taiwanese government which showed at the time McDonnell Douglas was in dire financial straights.

The MD-12 would have been a smaller version of the A380 probably as a direct competitor to the 747-400 and a replacement for the 747 classics, a stretch version of the MD-12 would have been in the position of being where the A380-800 is today or a competitor to the also shelved 747-600X and the NLA from Boeing.



"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 33620 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):

I expect McD launching the MD-12 would have forced Boeing's hand to get the 747-X into production. And at that point, Airbus would likely have felt forced to launch the A3XX/A380.

Why? Boeing did not let the A380 force them into anything except the 748 (which I think they would have done anyway since the 747 sales were drying up thanks to the A340 and 777). Boeing's position at the time was there wasn't enough of a market to support even one new VLA, let alone two. If MD had proceeded with the MD-12 it probably would have led directly to bankruptcy (except that they couldn't find the money to do anything with it, and any backers would want some firm customers lined up, which I doubt MD could have produced.) Perhaps if they had proceeded it would have kept Boeing from acquiring them, which would have been better for Boeing. I think Airbus was determined to build the A380 anyway; so that would have happened; MD would have sunk without a trace, and Boeing would not have been poisoned by the MD purchase. So if it would have gone that way it would perhaps have been a much better outcome.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineFly2YYZ From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 1045 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 33559 times:



Quoting 2707200X (Reply 12):
The MD 12 double decker project needed help from the Taiwanese government which showed at the time McDonnell Douglas was in dire financial straights.

The projected needed help from the Taiwanese government? Can you please expand on this? This is interesting!


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30989 posts, RR: 86
Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 33349 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 13):
Why?

There was real interest in the 747-600X in the mid-to-late 1990s. MH and TG actually committed to ordering it and BA was ready to do so, as well. Then the Asian Financial Crisis hit, which killed the need for the plane by MH and TG, which then made BA reluctant to go forward, so they pulled out, as well.

Based on McD's own data, an MD-12 would not have burned any less fuel than a 747-400 at similar passenger loads (~430 in a "manufacturer generic" configuration), but when pushed to 515, it would have burned over 10% less.

Neither the A340-600 nor the 777-300ER existed at that time, so the 747-400 was still selling on the basis of both it's range and it's capacity and why airlines were interested in 747 models that offered more of each. The MD-12 going into production and service therefore would have been a "clear and present danger" to the 747-400 which would have, IMO, forced Boeing to respond with a larger model.


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 33217 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Thread starter):
It is sad, of course, that it didn't come to light, or that Boeing didn't run with it.

There is no viable large VLA market. The A380 isn't even close to making back it's numbers. Boeing was very wise not to run with this concept.


User currently offlineBillreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 1012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 33155 times:



Quoting EL-AL (Reply 2):
This a/c had no chance even if MD was still around. MD could not afford itself to build brand new airplane from nothing, and as we can see from the sales of the A380 such a large plane isn't best seller.

Agreed. The A380 sales is hampered by newer technology in the A350XWB and the B787 which appears to be far more interesting for Global carriers.

Additionally if there is any further unrest and instability in the Middle East then we may see a severe dwindle in deliveries to Emirates.



Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 33021 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):

There was real interest in the 747-600X in the mid-to-late 1990s. MH and TG actually committed to ordering it and BA was ready to do so, as well. Then the Asian Financial Crisis hit, which killed the need for the plane by MH and TG, which then made BA reluctant to go forward, so they pulled out, as well.

This does not change the fact that MD would have had great difficulty in financing the MD-12; but if they had, Boeing still would have responded much as they did to the A380. As I said before, if MD had had the MD-12 in the works I think Boeing would have let them collapse instead of buying them out, which would have been much better for Boeing. I see absolutely no benefit to Boeing and a lot of drawbacks to the "merger". If MD had gone bankrupt Boeing could have still purchased the military division out of bankruptcy, and let the commercial division die. A sad end to a once great name (Douglas), but it is what should have happened. The merger has been nothing but bad for Boeing, most specifically in the managers they inherited.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10031 posts, RR: 96
Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 32869 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 13):
Boeing's position at the time was there wasn't enough of a market to support even one new VLA, let alone two

something must have changed, now that they're lining up the twin-deck Ecoliner to kill the A380..  Wink

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 5):
I find the performance claims hard to believe. They were going to pack 100 more passengers into an aircraft only 35 t heavier than a 747-400, *and* beat the 747-400's range, while using essentially the same class of engines, and with a wing the size of an A340 wing?

I don't buy it either.

Rgds


User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7379 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 32818 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Billreid (Reply 17):
Additionally if there is any further unrest and instability in the Middle East then we may see a severe dwindle in deliveries to Emirates.

As long as people are transiting, there'll be no problems for EK as most passengers for them are routing xxx-DXB-yyy. It's those airlines which terminate at DXB that may have problem.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 16):
The A380 isn't even close to making back it's numbers. Boeing was very wise not to run with this concept.

I'm so glad you've determined the market for the next 20 years. laying down strips of tarmac isn't going to be way forward if various governments want to limit airport expansion, and the A350XWBs and 787s aren't going to see a bear witness to a siginificant number of new hub to spoke routes or point-to-point routes. I'd even wager that some goverments may articfically limit airport opening hours in the future. So to transport the same number of pax as they do currently, airlines may be "forced" into buying larger aircraft then they would have normally done if there were no constraints.


User currently offlineFlyNWA727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32733 times:



Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 16):

Quoting Kaitak (Thread starter):
It is sad, of course, that it didn't come to light, or that Boeing didn't run with it.

There is no viable large VLA market. The A380 isn't even close to making back it's numbers. Boeing was very wise not to run with this concept.

I was just getting ready to say the same thing. This person clearly hasn't done their research on VLA's.

Boeing tried, unsuccessfully, two (or three) times to offer a new VLA to the airlines. The original 747-500 and 747-600, the latter which was a monster in terms of length, and then again with a brand new, full-double decker design. No airline expressed real interests in any of the aircraft. Something which has always puzzled me, because then Airbus came along and claimed that airlines were telling them a different story, and that they did need a VLA. I don't want to start an A -vs- B war, but it's hard not to suspect that Airbus really just wanted to one-up Boeing so they could brag they had the largest commercial airliner in the world. I can't see how both Airbus and Boeing both presented VLA's to the airlines and Boeing was told there wasn't a market for it and Airbus was told there was. Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Anyway, going back to the original topic at hand, Boeing was indeed very wise not to enter the VLA market. It has given them time to design the 787, 747-8, and seriously study some long term Boeing 737 replacement plans as well as 777 upgrades. There will be a market for VLA's down the road, and when it does happen, Boeing will have the advantage because they will have the resources to produce one and the plane will be technologically superior to the Airbus.



First flight aboard a Northwest B727-251ADV out of BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport, my hometown airport.
User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7379 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32690 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting FlyNWA727 (Reply 21):
Boeing was indeed very wise not to enter the VLA market. It has given them time to design the 787, 747-8

What is the 748i if not a VLA? Bigger than the 744 and in a different ICAO category to the 744 I believe. Ok, not new design VLA, but a VLA all the same.

Quoting FlyNWA727 (Reply 21):
Boeing will have the advantage because they will have the resources to produce one and the plane will be technologically superior to the Airbus.

So you expect Airbus to sit on their laurels then for the next decade because they would have no aircraft going to produce revenue to further refine the A380 or come up with an A320 replacement?


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32658 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting FlyNWA727 (Reply 21):
Boeing was told there wasn't a market for it and Airbus was told there was. Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

There was no market for what Boeing proposed to the airlines. There is a market (although not so big as initially anticipated due to several major events that took place in recent years) for a VLA according to the concept Airbus offered to the airlines. There is no conspiracy at all here.  Wink Why must it be a conspiracy when Boeing is on the loosing end, and why do people say Boeing always outmatches Airbus technologically when it is clear that they some times do, but sometimes (most of the times the last 20 years) don't?

Quoting FlyNWA727 (Reply 21):
There will be a market for VLA's down the road, and when it does happen, Boeing will have the advantage because they will have the resources to produce one and the plane will be technologically superior to the Airbus.

It is highly unlikely Boeing will start a VLA program anytime soon, if ever at all. Probably after the EIS of the B737-successor (planned for the early 2020's) it could (but not should) come to that. If the plane they will design be the famous Y3, it better be a more modern plane. I doubt it will be as large as an A380 though.  Wink But it most likely will be a super-twin.


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 32659 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Thread starter):
It is sad, of course, that it didn't come to light, or that Boeing didn't run with it. They could have tweaked it a bit and who knows how things might have ended up.

It's far from being sad.. it was a sound business decision by both McDonnell Douglas and Boeing. The market for a jet of this size remains very limited as shown by the Airbus A380 sales numbers. Coming up on 8 years since first flight and just now breaking 200 units sold... and still far below break even numbers.

[Edited 2010-01-04 13:37:42]


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
25 Stitch : Not entirely true. Authority to Offer the 747-500X and 747-600X was given by the Board in the summer of 1996 and the two models were publicly launche
26 474218 : ? I would expect them to cancel the A380 to free up cash and factory space.
27 Astuteman : Cancelling the A380 programme won't free up cash. It will have EXACTLY the opposite effect. In spades There'll be no cancellation. Sad though the "to
28 EPA001 : I did not know Boeing had come so close to actually selling and developing one of these variants of the B747 they were proposing at the time. Thanks
29 474218 : Exactly how much money do you think Airbus has made on the A380 program? Last year they delivered all of 10 airframes there is no reason to think the
30 David_itl :
31 EPA001 : They took immense write-offs on the program and are not continuously investing in the program. As Boeing did in 2009 on the B787 and B748 program. Th
32 Stitch : True, but any investment made in the A380 will not be made solely on the basis of whether or not it will turn a profit on the entire program, but whe
33 AirFrnt : The A380 is a albatross. It cost Airbus a chance to soundly defeat Boeing when Boeing hit problems with the 787. It will not make money back for it's
34 747400sp : I was reading an article about the MD12 back in 2005. In the article it was stated that MD needed backing by the Taiwanese, to have enough money to b
35 David_itl : Of course they wiil. After all, they don't have an A350XWB or A330 on offer catering for the smaller sized operations.
36 SEPilot : I've seen a lot of talk from A-netters about the Ecoliner, but I haven't seen anything from Boeing about it. Precisely. The development money is spen
37 AirFrnt : Your thinking too big. The Ecoliner concept has been around for a while, and I have not heard of any momentum. Regardless, Boeing would be just as te
38 BillReid : Depends how low perception of the region dips. With different options HIGH YIELDING pax will not route themselves through a true HOT SPOT. The A380 w
39 Golli : The absolute worst thing, would be to abandon the program and close the shop. Golli.
40 Astuteman : Dunno. But I DO know that they've spent the development costs. Not only would wrapping up the programme eliminate cash inflow, but it would result in
41 United Airline : Boeing will probably come up with a double decker VLA in 20 years time. The Y3 is a double decker B 747/777 replacement from what I read
42 BMI727 : My guess would be that a plane of that size (especially in that timeframe, when A380s will be aging) will be a blended wing body configuration. I've
43 Post contains links and images Keesje : I think Boeing is to smart to go head to head with Airbus on the 500+ seat segment. They considered it though.. There is however the significant "mini
44 SEPilot : That was my attempt at precisely that.
45 Travelhound : I don't really want to get into an argument about if the A380 will be profitable or not, but I think there is more to the argument than what has alre
46 EPA001 : A very good post Travelhound. Especially your conclusion is what I totally agree with. Now let's hope Airbus can resolve the bottlenecks in the produ
47 Stitch : At this point, I don't really see what Airbus has to lose by keeping the A380 line open. Even if every frame they push out the door at the moment is i
48 AirFrnt : I agree with this. Airbus made their bed - 2x times too large, and now they have to sleep in it. As I understand, that's not completely true. Airbus
49 David_itl : What is the A350XWB? About half the size of the A380.
50 Astuteman : If you mean the repayment of royalties, then that's probably a very fair comment. I can accept that. I'd still suggest that the penalties and sheer b
51 David_itl : Err. Shurely shome mishtake!
52 Astuteman : Depends what scale model you buy (switches keys around on keybarod.. ) A3-fifty-900 of course Rgds
53 AirFrnt : Yep. My point exactly. Again, I completely agree with this.
54 David_itl : Your point was So by agreeing that they have got an aircraft that fits that category, we've established that there was no point being made.
55 Tugger : One thing people seem to miss or at least ignore is the strategic business case for the 747-8i: With it Boeing puts pricing pressure against Airbus an
56 AirFrnt : No, my point is that Airbus simply got the economics and demand for the A380 wrong. The fact that they got the A350 right (after getting that wrong t
57 Stitch : And yet, airlines don't base their purchasing decisions purely on the purchase price. Also, Boeing and Airbus only have direct control over the price
58 SEPilot : As I have said many times, Boeing wants to keep Airbus from doing to VLA customers what Boeing themselves did for 30 years. A very smart strategy, an
59 ER757 : When did Keesje get a job in the Boeing sales dept? If some of us a.nuts had our way, it would already have been built. Now that's just silly. You we
60 Golli : I agree with that. Keeps the airframers on their toes, even though the two (A380 & B748) are not exactly comparable in size. It's a dynamic business,
61 United Airline : I was told that it will be slightly bigger than the B 747-400, similar to the B 747-8. Double decker. Well it's hard to stretch it that long I guess?
62 Ikramerica : Y3 would be 350-450, and in today's squish em in world, could do this via a 3-5-3 Y layout with 17.2" seats, 2-4-2 Y+ (or 2-2-2-2), and 2-2-2-2 stagge
63 Post contains images Keesje : If you want to keep strains/weight under pressure body's have to stay about round. Going wider then 10 abreast creates lots of lost space. The 777 su
64 SEPilot : No question about it. I would say that the 777 is probably just about as wide as it is feasible to go with a single deck. That being said, I doubt th
65 Stitch : The A380-800 is a bit over 6.5m wide on her main deck, which is about a half meter wider than the 747/777. Right now the fuselage is about 33cm wider
66 Astuteman : Maybe 6" or so more width shouldn't be too much of a problem, particularly if the fuselage height doesn't change. Add perhaps 2" for thinner skin, an
67 Group51 : I remember seeing a picture of an MD-11 with a lower (cargo) cabin with business seats. I think it was an advert in Flight International. Was I dreami
68 474218 : I think you have it backwards, to increase the fuselage diameter you would have to increase the skin thickness!
69 PlanesNTrains : I wonder, though, if the below might be accurate as well? I know the talk is that CX is only interested in the -900, but how many carriers would fall
70 Stitch : PSA had a cargo-deck lounge in a handful of their L-1011s. And I believe LH puts cargo-bay lavs in some of their A340s (they also have crew rest modu
71 SEPilot : Not necessarily. The difference in operating costs are not that great, but they favor the A380 as long as the carrier is pretty sure of being able to
72 BMI727 : If the 787 has the effect on the industry Boeing wants, and the trend remains more or less the same, I would expect the Y3 near the lower end of that
73 Ikramerica : And how does showing a 12 abreast plane with 3 aisles prove your point about an 11 abreast, 2 aisle (in Y) aircraft? And why do we need to go single
74 SEPilot : My expectation is that Y3 will be the largest single deck twin engine plane that Boeing can fit into the 80m x 80m box; with the possible addition of
75 BMI727 : The 787's growth potential has come under a bit of scrutiny since the announcement that the -8 and -9 will share a wing. My personal thinking is that
76 Baroque : I have a very similar dream (now known technically as a 787!) not sure if MD 11 but definitely MD. One of the supposed advantages was sloped windows
77 Astuteman : I was making an allowance for the CFRP body, and newer thinking/materials in the linings. And an increase from 244" - 250" is pretty incremental IMO
78 Thegeek : No way will the Y3, if it happens, have a partial upper deck a la the 747. Boeing already have the market for freighters which require a nose loading
79 BMI727 : I don't think it was actually for nose loading. The actual reason was concerns that cargo could crush the cockpit in a hard landing I believe.
80 FlyNWA727 : Well, I know the 747 was originally entered in the design competition for a large military transport. And we all know that it eventually lost out to
81 BMI727 : Actually, I don't think that is true either. It was mentioned on here before, but I think that the 747 actually had little in common with Boeing's pr
82 FlyNWA727 : Actually we are both correct. But from what I've read in the past, I think the design for the 747 originally did stem from the requirement from the m
83 Astuteman : That makes a lot of sense to me. With the exception of the word "killer", of course. Rgds
84 Post contains links BMI727 : The most important way that the CX-HLS influenced the 747 was in propulsion. The JT9D was actually the engine that lost the competition to power the
85 Post contains links and images Keesje : I think the standardization of the 787 wing on the -8 and -9 makes sense from a production simplification standpoint. On top I think there are a lot
86 BMI727 : I think that the story was that the -8 wing is doing better than expected and the aerodynamic benefits of a different wing for the -9 would be cancel
87 Parapente : I believe Boeings decision to scrap the extended wing for the 787-9/1- is significant.We absolutly know what Boeing intended as they (for a short time
88 Astuteman : There's no doubt about that, Keejse. I think it's a fine successor to the 748i. It's the extent of the "headache" for Airbus, and the commensurate "h
89 Rheinwaldner : Good remarks! I think the weigth cross check is valid and valuable. This brings up another point: engine-off take off capability. The 748 uses 200k l
90 Baroque : Squared. Which will by that time and assuming this is the case also be about 4% better than they are at present. Meaning that 388s might not be quite
91 Post contains links and images Keesje : I think it would bad pratice for Boeing to go head to head with Airbus in the 500+ seat VLA segment. The segment below is wide open and probably large
92 Burkhard : At a list price of 320 Mio $, with estimated 33-40% rebate, with 20 delivered 4 billion plus/minus peanuts. Which I had one permille of that.
93 JerseyFlyer : [quote=Stitch,reply=47]At this point, I don't really see what Airbus has to lose by keeping the A380 line open. Even if every frame they push out the
94 Astuteman : Ah. My thanks. By my calcs that would make it about a 400m2 cabin - bigger than 744 but smaller than 748, and about 38% smaller than the A380-800 (on
95 Stitch : The real limit on the growth potential of the 787 is the undercarriage. They cannot support a TOW much beyond 250t, which the 787-9 is already nudgin
96 Keesje : The only reason to develop bigger aircraft is more seats with all the economies of scale that come with it.. Thnx you for looking at the numbers. I h
97 Stitch : True. And such a reason makes far more sense for Airbus to develop the A380 as opposed to trying to cut Boeing's margins on the 747.
98 Scorpio : People easily seem to forget that, at this point in its 'career' (little over two years after EIS), the A330 actually had FEWER orders than the A380
99 Post contains images EPA001 : It would be very nice if the A380 would reach such numbers on copies sold. But that is highly unlikely. But the plane remains an icon with still a lo
100 ER757 : and . Gentlemen, you make this forum educational to many of us. I am a fan of the Ecoliner concept - and I think that rendering in AF livery is beaut
101 Zkpilot : That looks so much nicer to the eyes than the Whalejet. Why did A have to have such a pigugly nose section!
102 SEPilot : When the A330 was introduced Airbus was still struggling for acceptance; there were still a lot of airlines looking at them with some skepticism. It
103 Astuteman : And refute your own arguments against the A380? Of course acceptance of a plane that size is one of the A380's issues at the moment. Particularly in
104 Scorpio : I disagree. First of all, as Astuteman has already mentioned, there was the A340. That did sell well in its early years. Second, we're talking about
105 Ikramerica : The A330 was improved substantially over time. Airbus at first pushed the A340, but once they increased the range of the A330 and gave up on the A340
106 United Airline : Heard that it will not be a full double decker. Heard that it will be something similar to the B 747 with a partial upper deck. Have they designed th
107 Scorpio : Airbus said from the very beginning that they expected the A330 to sell better than the A340. The A330 started outselling the A340 well before Airbus
108 Post contains images EPA001 : Very much so. Starting with the first update coming in 2012. I am sure we will see many more smaller or even major upgrades. For example: if the A380
109 United Airline : Y3=the econoliner right? Heard that it will be a bit smaller than the A 380 but it will be a full double decker with 2 engines. 3-3-3 for the first le
110 Astuteman : Not correct. Y3 is a concept which is the largest of the 3 "Yellowstone" platforms being considered by Boeing as their "next generation" family of ai
111 Thegeek : That may be, but nose loading is the prime advantage of continuing with an upper deck cockpit. It seems that the certifying authorities can be satisf
112 United Airline : Doubt Boeing has started with the design of the Y3 yet. Heard that it will be a double decker. Others told me that it will be a single decker. Better
113 BMI727 : I imagine that they are looking at basic configuration and sizing type things. They probably haven't taken much, if anything, to the airlines yet. Bu
114 Astuteman : Obviously not, but at the time Yellowstone was started, I'm pretty sure they would have played with a family of aircraft configurations from a very e
115 BMI727 : This would be my first preference. The 787-10 may be a significant redesign, but it would probably be worth it. The only way I'd want a 787-11 is if
116 EPA001 : Very interesting suggestions. A B787-11 would be a direct competitor to the A351-XWB I presume. But I would not rule out an A350-1100 as a response b
117 Post contains links and images Keesje : I see it as likely Boeing will come up with a 787 NG. The 787-8 and -9 will be rougly comparable to A330-200 and -300 and the NG's could be full 777
118 Stitch : In what way? In order to stop Boeing from making "obscene profits" on the 747-400, Airbus would have had to sell the A380-800 for significantly less
119 Baroque : B did produce an long set of different proposals for follow ons to the 747-400 and what amazed me most was they seemed to keep getting heavier (per p
120 Stitch : Reality trumped fiction, I imagine. Though when you think about it, a 747-500X and 747-8 are relatively close in size. The 747-500X was expected to f
121 Thegeek : I don't believe that either. In the 1990s, it seemed like that 747 would continue selling at large profits. If you proceed on that assumption then th
122 United Airline : Wonder if the A 380 will sell just as good as the B 747 once the economy picks up fast again. Boeing will probably build the double decker theatre BWB
123 BMI727 : I doubt it. The market just isn't the same. You have open skies agreements and the general market trend is towards frequency over capacity. 2020 is p
124 United Airline : The A 380 will still do very well on ultra busy hub to hub routes
125 CHRISBA777ER : In the US in the 90s - yes that is true. For the rest of the world, particularly Asia, that is just not correct.
126 Astuteman : So the trend is towards frquency over capacity, so the A380 won't sell, but in 20 years time we're going to see an ultra high capacity twin-deck BWB
127 BMI727 : I didn't say that the A380 won't sell, it will. I just said that there probably won't be as many A380s as there were 747s at its peak. There is still
128 Astuteman : A balanced middle ground. My kind of post, my friend Rgds
129 BMI727 : I don't feel the need to take sides on everything, just some things. And for that matter, God only knows what the market will look like in 2020-2030.
130 Baroque : Interesting, I had not realised the 748 was so much lighter than the 747-500X. Also I had not realised the 500X had a version of the 777 wing althoug
131 Post contains images EPA001 : As balanced as it is, I do not completely agree. "Not as common as they were in the past years" might be true, but we do have to keep in mind the dev
132 AirFrnt : Doubtful. The megacapacity routes are saturated now. It's completely different from the circumstances that led to the 747's success. The BWB's projec
133 United Airline : You never know. One day we might see traffic picking up very fast and we might need many VLAs on multiple number of flights.
134 Post contains images Keesje : Locally. The Asians, Boeing and Airbus think air traffic will more then double in the next 20 yrs. The masses still move into bigger population cente
135 Astuteman : If that's a viable figure (which I doubt). But the A380's 20%+ improvement, which is real, will have no impact at all? Rgds
136 EPA001 : More then occasionally we see double standards being applied here on A-net if the A380 comes into play. You have correctly pointed this out many time
137 Cpd : Just look at the flag. Boeing = USA, Airbus = France. That's being simplistic, but it all boils down to national pride I think, and a bit of patrioti
138 United Airline : Many US+European routes require the size of a B 747 too. Not just Asia.
139 Cpd : Yet, the funny thing is, that airlines rushed for them - particularly Qantas, and you didn't see them retiring many B747-400 planes, excepting those
140 Stitch : Yes they did, as long as there wasn't an alternative. So the bulk of orders came between 1985 and 1995. By 2000, the A340-600 was available and a num
141 Baroque : TBR (too bloody right!). And for once an equipment rant that is justified!
142 AirFrnt : So far the market has shown that a 20% improvement doesn't. So instead of jumping all over me in a typically partisan way, why don't you read what I
143 Stitch : That should have said WOULD NOT have ordered 200 747-400s, instead.
144 Stitch : I'd argue that. The A340-600 and 777-300ER are both also said to be about 20% more efficient than the 747-400. So when you look at "the market", the
145 Astuteman : Mmmm SQ have said that they can repace 10 x 773ER with 7 x A380, adding 20% more capacity whilst reducing costs by 3%. So something "ain't right" her
146 EPA001 : Absolutely nothing Partisan about it. I also did not directly referred to your post, but spoke more in general about the A380 bashing that too many h
147 Thegeek : It was on the market, but hadn't entered service or even flown yet. So it might have had some effect as a paper plane, but until it's performance was
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...
Emirates To Paris With A380 29 December posted Mon Dec 28 2009 10:44:15 by Haan
Non-reving On The A380 posted Thu Dec 24 2009 08:41:16 by AF Cabin Crew
EK A380 To KSA posted Thu Dec 24 2009 01:14:07 by QatarA340
Qantas Launch A380 On MEL - LHR posted Tue Dec 22 2009 07:45:02 by Fauzi
First To Fly The AF A380 Visits Concorde G-B0AD posted Sat Dec 19 2009 04:45:06 by MadameConcorde
Emirates A380 On Google Earth posted Sat Dec 19 2009 00:00:05 by Emirates2005
Pictures Of LH 1st A380 Outfitted At Hamburg posted Fri Dec 18 2009 03:09:36 by Flyglobal
2 SQ A380 At CDG This Morning 17/12 posted Thu Dec 17 2009 00:00:57 by Stevens91
SQ A380 Back To CDG Today posted Wed Dec 16 2009 11:27:30 by Varig md-11
AF A380 Stay On Ground At JFK posted Tue Dec 15 2009 00:18:53 by DID747