Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What if Boeing Was To Make A Super Twin?  
User currently online747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3649 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 3 months 15 hours ago) and read 15102 times:

I was wondering, what if Boeing built a bigger sister to the 777 like the 747 was to the 707?

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 15 hours ago) and read 15115 times:

You mean an A388/A389 size twin?

Engine capacity I'd guess - nobody out there has a 180-200klbs thrust engine and the GE90 family (or anything else for that matter) can scale up that high. We're talking a totally new turbofan family. Massively expensive to develop - the likes of GE and RR will not want to go there as they have too much on with their respective 787 and A350 family engines, not to mention the LeapX and GTF technologies etc.

Wont happen for a long time - if ever.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 14943 times:

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 1):
thrust engine and the GE90 family (or anything else for that matter) can scale up that high.

No, I don't think any existing engine can scale up that high.

But I think it would be foolish to rule out the possibility. Both B & A have their hands full now with everything from 350s, 787s, NEOs, & 737/97s. Even Airbus has hinted that the NEO may only be a stop gap for something totally new in the early 2020s. We'll see...
However, if Embraer & Bombardier begin to erode B&A's duopoly (and hopefully they'll do some good amount of damage there this decade) in the lower 150-210 seat market, we're sure to see some re-prioritization. If A continues to stumble along, for example, with just enough 380 sales to keep the line semi-viable then B could decide that a 560-720 pax twin would be worth pursuing. I'll defer to the experts here, but I think we'd need something in the neighborhood of about 160 - 190k out of those powerplants. I'll go even further out on a limb and say that they'd have to be aft & center mounted, likely meaning a T-tail config. Anything with 190k power will have very serious asymmetrical thrust issues in an engine-out event.


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17055 posts, RR: 67
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 14905 times:

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 2):
I'll defer to the experts here, but I think we'd need something in the neighborhood of about 160 - 190k out of those powerplants. I'll go even further out on a limb and say that they'd have to be aft & center mounted, likely meaning a T-tail config. Anything with 190k power will have very serious asymmetrical thrust issues in an engine-out event.

Most likely such large engines will be wing mounted. The thrust asymmetry issue can be resolved with a long fuselage (more swingarm) and a larger tail. On the other hand, putting such engines on the tail creates enormous structural issues. You also have problems with control line redundancy in case of an uncontained failure and problematic fuel line design. Not to mention weight distribution and maintenance issues.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 3 hours ago) and read 14826 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
Not to mention weight distribution and maintenance issues.

I think the cg issues can be taken care of by moving the wings further aft, and are there any mx issues other than accesability?

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
You also have problems with control line redundancy in case of an uncontained failure and problematic fuel line design.

Yeah that could be problematic...

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
(more swingarm) and a larger tail.

Is a larger tail any lighter than addt'l structure weight aft? Also, with a clean wing design, you may only need a smaller wing area, somewhere again that weight could be saved. Also, part of my thinking on the issue that I forgot to mention in my last post was about FOD ingestion... I'm wondering at what point (thrust wise) that starts to become issue-matic and it actually would be desirable to mount the engines higher.

Anyway, that said, it could still be more desirable to go wing mounted. But I just think it will be thought about both ways...


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17055 posts, RR: 67
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months ago) and read 14759 times:

FOD ingestion shouldn't be a problem unless you mount the engines further out like on the 380. That wouldn't happen on a twin.

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 4):
... are there any mx issues other than accesability?

I don't think so but it's a doozy. Apart from the height off the ground, stuff gets mushed into a smaller space and the engines are not as easy to get on and off as wing mounted.

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 4):


Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
(more swingarm) and a larger tail.

Is a larger tail any lighter than addt'l structure weight aft?

You'd have to ask an expert but I think it would be much lighter. Also the wing needs to be stronger (= heavier) without the engines hanging off it.

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 4):
I think the cg issues can be taken care of by moving the wings further aft

Yes.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4335 posts, RR: 28
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 14377 times:

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 1):
Massively expensive to develop - the likes of GE and RR will not want to go there as they have too much on with their respective 787 and A350 family engines, not to mention the LeapX and GTF technologies etc.

I agree that it would be massively expensive to develop, but I think they wouldn't go there because the market for such a bird (VLA) would be somewhat limited, at least for the foreseeable future.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19796 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 14349 times:

One of the issues is that an engine will need to be constructed so that it can be loaded into a cargo plane and flown to an AOG situation.

To make an engine with significantly more thrust than the GE-90-115B will probably require a larger fan, with a larger fan case, with a larger outer diameter, which can't be loaded into a 747F.

There are ways around this, but l doubt that airlines want to pay for an An-225 every time an entine needs to be ferried somewhere.


User currently offlinen901wa From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 465 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 14345 times:

I think if they were to go that route, I think it would end up in the Blended Wing Design. But who knows what Boeing got hid away  

User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4335 posts, RR: 28
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 14286 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
One of the issues is that an engine will need to be constructed so that it can be loaded into a cargo plane and flown to an AOG situation.

To make an engine with significantly more thrust than the GE-90-115B will probably require a larger fan, with a larger fan case, with a larger outer diameter, which can't be loaded into a 747F.

If they could sling the engine under the wing to power the plane, they could probably also put a hard point under the same wing to carry a spare engine to the AOG situation. 747's have (or at least had in the case of the classics) the ability to do just that, and I believe other aircraft had or have that capability as well.

But just to play my own devil's advocate, I wonder if a spare engine of such an enormous size (assuming the theoretical engine we're talking about here would be proportionately larger as well compared to current technology) wouldn't create so much drag that slinging it under the wing for a ferry flight would render that option not viable.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineQFA787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 14285 times:

Boeing has been talking about developing a 777NG with a shrink and a stretch of the 77W(I would guess 3-4 rows each way). Add new engines a composite wing and possible composite fuselage and I think that's the direction they'll take with an EIS in the early 2020s. Boeing see the VLA market as a niche and I don't think they will concern themselves with a 748 replacement in the form of a twin.

User currently offlinepzlpw5 From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 14266 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
To make an engine with significantly more thrust than the GE-90-115B will probably require a larger fan, with a larger fan case, with a larger outer diameter, which can't be loaded into a 747F.

On the crazy-talk side of the idea spectrum, I wonder if there might be some way to drive two fans by one core?


User currently offlineC46 From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 14260 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 6):
I agree that it would be massively expensive to develop, but I think they wouldn't go there because the market for such a bird (VLA) would be somewhat limited, at least for the foreseeable future.

Agreed and since the A380 has that market for the next 30+ years (basing that on what the 747 did) I agree with others that said it'd be just too expensive to develop an engine to drive a similar sized twin.

Quoting pzlpw5 (Reply 11):
On the crazy-talk side of the idea spectrum, I wonder if there might be some way to drive two fans by one core?

Are you thinking of one core driving two side-by-side fans by some geared mechanism? Or two fans in a row? The TF-39 had a 1 1/2 fan stage design so I'm sure it possible but not sure how efficent that design would be. And with a side-by-side design I'm sure it'd be a significant challenge to figure out how to develop enough energy in the core to drive the fans. Who knows what we'll see in 20 years though  


User currently offlineAKiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 612 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 14139 times:

Quoting pzlpw5 (Reply 11):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
To make an engine with significantly more thrust than the GE-90-115B will probably require a larger fan, with a larger fan case, with a larger outer diameter, which can't be loaded into a 747F.

On the crazy-talk side of the idea spectrum, I wonder if there might be some way to drive two fans by one core?

Are you talking about a multi-stage fan? If so, sure, almost every military turbofan out there is a multistage fan, but that doesn't solve the problem. Multi-stage fans will give you a higher thrust to weight ratio and will increase thrust if you can get enough energy out of the core, but it isn't nearly as efficient as increasing fan diameter. To be at all feasible, you would have to almost double the air mass flow going through the bypass. In commercial turbofans, about 70-80% of the thrust is produced by the bypass (especially on these larger, high BPR engines like the GE90 or the PW4000). The problem with increasing fan diameter from the GE90 is that your tip speeds are starting to get ridiculous so you will get larger shocks on more of the blade which equals inefficiences. You also need to start stiffining the blades substantially for aeromechanical reasons. All of this would be a substantial hit to efficiency.

If you are talking about two fans, side by side, on one core then you are essentially creating a turbo prop as the core would have to run a shaft which could be split by a differential to run each fan. It would be ridiculously difficult and I am guessing a basic back-of-the-envelope analysis would decree it far too costly and heavy.



Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1575 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 14076 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 4):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 3):
(more swingarm) and a larger tail.

Is a larger tail any lighter than addt'l structure weight aft?

Yes a large tail is heavy but the benefit of having an increased tail arm is that you can stuff it with PAX.

Think of all the planes that have increased thrust, and been turned into pencils with no larger tail surfaces.

Fred


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10075 posts, RR: 97
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13999 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting QFA787380 (Reply 10):
Boeing see the VLA market as a niche and I don't think they will concern themselves with a 748 replacement in the form of a twin.

But they'll build a 773ER stretch ....

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 2):
B could decide that a 560-720 pax twin would be worth pursuing. I'll defer to the experts here, but I think we'd need something in the neighborhood of about 160 - 190k out of those powerplants

mmm
14 replies and nobody's mentioned the Ecoliner concept....   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVWQ5h5UOfk

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 13937 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
14 replies and nobody's mentioned the Ecoliner concept...

It was one of the first things that crossed my mind, but with CFRP not looking to be significantly lighter than Al, I expect the Ecoliner will require more than 250,000 pounds of thrust. And I am absolutely am convinced we shall not see a "thrusting APU".


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19796 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13812 times:

Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 13):

If you are talking about two fans, side by side, on one core then you are essentially creating a turbo prop as the core would have to run a shaft which could be split by a differential to run each fan. It would be ridiculously difficult and I am guessing a basic back-of-the-envelope analysis would decree it far too costly and heavy.

Worse than two engines?

Tough, yes, but worse than two engines? I wonder...


User currently offlineAKiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 612 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 13748 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 13):

If you are talking about two fans, side by side, on one core then you are essentially creating a turbo prop as the core would have to run a shaft which could be split by a differential to run each fan. It would be ridiculously difficult and I am guessing a basic back-of-the-envelope analysis would decree it far too costly and heavy.

Worse than two engines?

Tough, yes, but worse than two engines? I wonder...

It would involve a complete redesign of our fundamental idea of how a turbofan were to work. The GE90, still a standard turbofan, was a complete redesign of the core and booster and cost $2 billion to develop. Granted they now have a monopoly in 777 engines (although Rolls is trying to potentially break in with their new Trent) but still, 2 billion for a redesign that follows standard turbofan form. I am guessing the development costs of this kind of engine would be on the order of 8-9 billion and it might not even be possible. The amount of energy you would need from the core would be massive. Either you make the core much larger, which runs into all sorts of scaling problems with aeromechanics and what not or you run the engine much hotter, which we currently are nowhere near the ability to do due to material constraints.

It would be a massive undertaking for sure.



Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13525 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
mmm
14 replies and nobody's mentioned the Ecoliner concept....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVWQ5h5UOfk

Rgds

Because it probably is a dead end.
Double deck cross sections are a night mare. There is one cross section that works quite OK, we are calling it A380.
Making it smaller only makes the upper deck less attractive or will increase structural weight.
Many more issues come to my mind:
- evacuation
- cargo capacity
- freighter conversion

The most suitable B777 replacement would be a 6.8m wide round fuselage (full 10-abreast economy, 11 abreast "small" economy). If you use the entire 80m box, you easily get 450 people inside, especially with some creative monument placing.
The aircraft has massive cargo capacity.

Engines: the landing gear has to be long anyway, and if engines are hard to fit you need to be a bit more creative in wing design. Increase dihedral or put the engines farer to the outside.

The aircraft would kill the A380-800 in CASM.
Problem: it would kill the B747-8 and B777-300ER first.



From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13453 times:

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 19):
Many more issues come to my mind:
- evacuation
- cargo capacity

Highly debatable. If they 380 can squeak by one these issues, then yes, it is a no brainer on a twin.

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 19):
If you use the entire 80m box, you easily get 450 people inside, especially with some creative monument placing.

The 777-300 can already do this as it is. Actually, it can get to 550 if need be, though I do not know how they would do this. 472 is the most I've heard of. As that is, it is already a better CASM than the 380. I wouldn't want to fly it that way though.

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 19):
Increase dihedral or put the engines farer to the outside.

Hmmm... Perhaps. But how far is too far I wonder... I'll bet that a wing with a lot of built in dihedral could support an engine perhaps out to 60% the distance from root to tip, but how aerodynamically wise is that? I'd still not rule out a tail mounted configuration...

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 19):
The aircraft has massive cargo capacity.

Maybe below decks, but like the 380, it would be undesirable at best to go for cargo ops. There are too many issues with structural design and wasted space for it to be profitable. But then again, with only two engines to feed, it may be more an acceptable option to have a three deck parcelor. I don't know...


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10075 posts, RR: 97
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13405 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 19):
Double deck cross sections are a night mare. There is one cross section that works quite OK, we are calling it A380.

The worst thing for me in the Ecoliner concept is that they ignore one of the biggest nightmares of a twin-deck approach - where do you cram that intensity of systems. There's a reason the A380 has the cross-section it has, and it STILL has integration problems

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 20):
Actually, it can get to 550 if need be, though I do not know how they would do this. 472 is the most I've heard of. As that is, it is already a better CASM than the 380

But in what configuration?
I'd like you to point me to anything flying that will get remotely close to the CASM of Air Austral's 840 seat A380's (which incidentally still offers more space per passenger than a 550 seat 773)

Rgds


User currently offlineSchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 13347 times:

A 6.8m cross section offers a A380-like economy. The B777 is too small to house a competitive 10-abreast economy, many airlines don't care and offer it anyway. The A380 is - when you look at it - plagued with many compromises. Double deck is the last resort.


From a structural standpoint, passengers are the worst possible payload. [Michael Chun-Yung Niu]
User currently offlineQFA787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 13221 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 15):
But they'll build a 773ER stretch ....

Which, of course, I did mention as a 3-4 row stretch of the 77W.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 12958 times:

I think adding a 40 klbs engine in the tail is easier to realize then creating a from 0 a 160 klbs engine & putting it under a wing.

A trijet (2.5 jet) would need less control surface (less asymmetric in case of a V1 shutdown), have substantial lighter wingstructure, no ETOPS restriction and could use existing engines (e.g. GE90-11X, GTF).

Quoting SchorschNG (Reply 19):
Making it smaller only makes the upper deck less attractive or will increase structural weight.

Don't think so it would have 3 aisles for 16 abreast (10 abreast potential on maindeck like 777). It would be aimed at the segment inbetween the 773 and A380, the 400-500 3 class seat segment, a kind of 1:1 747 replacement.



25 thegeek : Possibly it is, but a 40klbs engine is bigger than a CFM56. Would this Thrusting APU then require an additional APU? Also no engines are made in that
26 Stitch : LROPS have put into place for trijets and quads many of the requirements ETOPS had for things like on-board medical support and cargo hold fire suppr
27 SchorschNG : A Trijet is definite no-go, especially with two different types of engine. Remember: this aircraft needs to compete with the two most efficient aircr
28 Post contains links keesje : I think there are no definite no-go's in aerospace. A case is made for each requirement. Solutions that used to be "no-go" once, can become feasible
29 SchorschNG : Dead volume isn't as bad as it seems. If the structure surrounding it is more efficient who cares. The twin deck might look as very innovative solutio
30 Post contains links and images keesje : SchorschNG, a widebody circulair fuselage would have similar cargo capasity as a A330 or 787, 2 LD3s side by side. The Ecoliner concept is 9 abreast m
31 thegeek : My understanding was the exact opposite. Do you have a link? Perhaps it is market specific. Note though that a number of quite reputable people are c
32 rheinwaldner : The "number of seats/diameter"-ratio or "seats/area of cross section"-ratio is extremely valuable to make money. And double deckers are unbeatbale re
33 SchorschNG : If you look at your posted link, the 450P aircraft is single deck. Twin deck becomes a useful solution above 500-530 pax three class. But the more at
34 Post contains links and images keesje : To avoid risks I took the 777 lower part of the fuselage / wing/ wingbox and blew up to upper half that is pretty much there already on the 777, but e
35 tdscanuck : Total drag is a relatively weak function of frontal area vis a vis decks. It has no effect on parasitic drag (that's a surface area function) and, al
36 Post contains images keesje : If you compare a circular cross section of 6.8m to a similar one of 6.4m, the resulting frontal area is (46.24 - 40.96)/40.96 *100% = 12-13% higher. G
37 SchorschNG : You will need more wing area, as your aircraft will be heavier. Means longer root chord, means trickier fuselage design. Actually, in aircraft design
38 tdscanuck : It's only significant if you're ignoring all the other implications. A circular cross section of 6.25% more diameter (6.8m vs 6.4m) does have ~12% mo
39 Post contains links and images keesje : If that only was true.. but it isn't. You can't add half a LD3 or introduced dozens of overhead crew rests in a profitable way. Boeing proved that wi
40 SchorschNG : The 6.8m single deck aircraft will gain capacity by several small things: - Your layout shown above gives us a B777 with 10-abreast seating. A 6.8m fu
41 Post contains links and images keesje : [Edited 2011-07-16 15:13:42]
42 Post contains images tdscanuck : I see a lot of quotes and a very artistically rendered doodle. Care to enlighten us on the connection? Tom.
43 SchorschNG : The aircraft doesn't start when capacity definition is finished, but it rather is a trade. Some passenger capacities are not served as the resulting a
44 rheinwaldner : I assume that all of these things are not discriminators. An equally good form can be applied to any fuselage. All fuselages are more teardrops than
45 tdscanuck : This is true. But this is not: What's being missed is how frontal drag plays into the overall aircraft drag and weight. In terms of pure fuselage for
46 Post contains links rheinwaldner : Again you correctly list 5 areas where the cross section has an impact. And again none of them inherently benefits more from a single deck fuselage t
47 tdscanuck : I don't think that's true...although in theory cross-sections can vary arbitrarily, the required cabin height forces them to "step" at certain points
48 wn700driver : Costs lower than Austral's 840 seater? I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that ANA's domestic 773s may still have an edge given the fact that they
49 flipdewaf : You can save weight with the fuselage being taller making it stiffer (higher second moment of area and all that) for the vertical forces from the Tai
50 Stitch : The A380 does have almost 70% more seats, however (471 to 278). It will be interesting to see what that number is after SQ introduces their new high-
51 SchorschNG : How many fish fly Mach 0.8?
52 Post contains images Starlionblue : To be fair, their fluid is much denser.
53 Post contains images keesje : I've seen many salmons doing M.8, smoked . If you give up LD3 cargo containers for flatter -45 variants (as used on A320, C919, MS21) , the passenger
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic What if Boeing Was To Make A Super Twin?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Was Going To Power The Twin Engine 727? posted Fri May 26 2006 18:29:04 by 747400sp
What Kind Of Navaid Was This? posted Wed Oct 8 2008 10:18:28 by Timz
ATC Staff, What Choice Of Air Space To Work. posted Sat Aug 9 2008 08:00:58 by Readytotaxi
Is It Possible To Make A Twin Engined B 747? posted Thu Nov 17 2005 20:25:49 by United Airline
I'm Trying To Make A Wind Tunnel Out Of A Desk Fan posted Mon Dec 10 2001 10:42:58 by Lehpron
What Military Design Was The L1011 Tristar Bases? posted Thu May 19 2011 15:14:26 by 747400sp
What Is The Formula To Determine Block Time? posted Thu Aug 19 2010 09:50:12 by flaps30
What Does It Take To Implement Steep Approach? posted Fri Jul 23 2010 11:36:02 by PPVRA
If EMB Was To Stretch The E-195-X To 160 Ft? posted Fri Apr 30 2010 19:15:23 by 747400sp
X-Ray Of A Boeing 777 posted Thu Feb 4 2010 15:44:33 by Qslinger
Is It Possible To Make A Twin Engined B 747? posted Thu Nov 17 2005 20:25:49 by United Airline
What If An ATP Had To Land... posted Thu Oct 3 2002 20:52:12 by Darius
If 727s Was Still Being Built Today? posted Tue Jan 10 2012 10:10:02 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format