Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Vicenza
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:31 pm

SteelChair wrote:
scbriml wrote:
NameOmitted wrote:
But why? The 757 was amazing. Hot, high, sprightly, a sportscar.


Others see a heavy, over-powered, fuel-guzzler. How many are left in active passenger service?


Fuel guzzler? Carrying 199 people on 7,000 lb/hr? That's an amazing fuel burn per seat, all the moreso given its 1982-83 service introduction. In fact, up until the GTF and LEAP, the fuel burn per seat was unmatched.


How many are in active service, and why did airlines stop buying them?
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6124
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:48 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Ho many people died from the fire in the Hindenburg disaster?

Fred



Not a good point... also because of this rarely known fact:

Until the Hindenburg disaster, Germany operated hydrogen-filled airships with an excellent safety record. Before that disaster, there had been 1-2 severely injured people in crashes due to...

...wind gusts.
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:52 pm

SeJoWa wrote:
keesje wrote:
I visited the World Tour -300 and remember I hit my head on the in aisle overhead monitor (CRT), low & in the middle of the aisle :fight: . I wondered how anyone could position it that low at that spot (there were 4-5 I guess.)


You're one of the "Tallest People in the World" [DutchMark]. We're not all alike! :spin:


I've also nearly knocked myself out on a 757 CRT. As much as i rail against in-seat IFE on JetBlue, and the fact that I see 9 at any given time, they are preferable.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:06 pm

I think that Hydrogen is going to be a non starter. The aim i to have a jet that will be able to fly the world over. How long will it take to establish hydrogen plants worldwide and are there going to be some punitive taxes? What does that mean when it comes to retaliatory taxes, or if they go the distance and ban jet fuel, what does that do for civilian aviation?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:35 pm

flyingturtle wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Ho many people died from the fire in the Hindenburg disaster?

Fred



Not a good point... also because of this rarely known fact:

Until the Hindenburg disaster, Germany operated hydrogen-filled airships with an excellent safety record. Before that disaster, there had been 1-2 severely injured people in crashes due to...

...wind gusts.

I don’t remember making a point, I asked a question. I could rephrase the question, how many does because of the fire vs how many died because the buoyancy of the ‘lighter than air’ machine they were in was drastically altered? I think the flammability of the hydrogen is less of an issue than it is made out to be here. The function of the hydrogen in a heavier than air machine is different than that of the lighter than air machine.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
Kikko19
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:36 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
Kikko19 wrote:
Leovinus wrote:

I agree with you. Hydrogen or algae based SAF's are the only real options in the shorter term for anything reaching medium haul stage lengths. At least until there is a massive weight reduction with solid state batteries.

Both have issues. Hydrogen doesn't yet have the infrastructure required. Nor the supply (but supply is even worse for SAF's, so equal footing there).

The premier downside with SAF's though is that I fear they will be a climate disaster prettied up as "green" tech. The only really valid source for carbon neutral alternate fuels is algae. The US and others are backing agriculture sectors instead however. This is skewing the price of what's needed to what's lobbied (and much worse). Agriculturally produced biofuels take far more energy to create, and land mass to use, for the given energy available in the end product. It's NOT carbon neutral. I've read about this over several years now, but this video by Real Engineering puts it very, very, well: https://youtu.be/OpEB6hCpIGM

The alternative is hydrogen then, which the EU and particularly France is pushing. It's in a sense a known technology. It's been tested and validated in aviation. With green energy used to create it it's essentially an entirely renewable and green fuel storage medium (I mean, you could make it with coal power, but that'd defeat the purpose). But this requires massive international investments in infrastructure. A slight upside is that you can run it either directly in traditional engines or through fuel cells for electric engines.

If I were Boeing I would be talking very seriously with Airbus about what direction to take. As two of the largest manufacturers in the west they can influence governments. And they will need to since they are reliant on something outside their field for the next generation of aircraft. The fuel and its infrastructure. Nothing they build until there is more clarity for the way forward can be expected to be particularly long lived. If they want sales numbers and longevity in the range of the 737 they need to take the future into account.

So aside from fuel, the question is if Boeing thinks it's valid to make a stop gap aircraft. One they know might need to be replaced completely a decade or two down the line.

IMHO electric has still too many problems. I saw a couple of videos about an electric scooter and a tesla burning.... I would never risk (yet) to board an electric powered plane


Luckily we never see petrol cars burning. Its not like it is so common the media just ignored it, it actually really never happens.

Yeah, billions of cars. Many very old and poorly maintained. I hope aerospace will keep some control over these new tech. I trust much more hydrogen than battery powered engines. You will have to carry the weight all the time also for landing not burning anything.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos