Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
blacksoviet wrote:Which versions of the A340 are still being built?
747400sp wrote:I wish MD did go ahead and lunch the MD-XX, because there would have been 3 generation the trijet, and Fed Ex would have had more years with the MD trijet, instead of those triple 7s that just do not feel Fed Ex like.
B-HOP wrote:ex DC-10 operator
PR-Got A330/340, to replace both A300, 747-200 and DC-10, also got A320/321, leased from World for a short time for YVR, didn't buy new ones
B-HOP wrote:PR No! They are either committed to 777-200ER (MH), A340 (PR), 747 (TG) or are too poor to buy anything.
ILNFlyer wrote:I have often wondered why MDD didn't go the clean sheet, twin engine route.
B-HOP wrote:Devilfish:
I remembered seeing PR MD-11 summer 1996 in Kai Tak, so they do fill in regionally, the problem is though PR ordered their A340 in 1993 and their first 342 would be back from Cathay by the end of 1996
B-HOP wrote:so I don't think they would touch MD-11ER, unless maybe they can do MNL-LAX nonstop.
DocLightning wrote:ILNFlyer wrote:I have often wondered why MDD didn't go the clean sheet, twin engine route.
They considered it with the DC-10, coming up with a squashed version of the DC-10 that would have been a 767 competitor, but the issue is that the fuselage was too wide to make it really a good design. Also, at the time that they were really thinking about the MD-11, there still weren't engines in the pipeline that were big enough to be able to make it a twin and given that they were mostly re-using the original DC-10 wing box and gear, I'm not sure if there was sufficient under-wing clearance to do that.
A clean-sheet design is a monumentally expensive and resource-intensive product. Just ask Boeing. McDD wasn't in the financial position to design such a product in the mid 1980s.
ILNFlyer wrote:I have often wondered why MDD didn't go the clean sheet, twin engine route.
SEPilot wrote:And while Boeing had the clout with the engine manufacturers to get them to try an engine big enough for the 777, neither MD nor Airbus did. So Boeing was the only one who could build a twin the size of the 777.
DocLightning wrote:SEPilot wrote:And while Boeing had the clout with the engine manufacturers to get them to try an engine big enough for the 777, neither MD nor Airbus did. So Boeing was the only one who could build a twin the size of the 777.
I'll disagree on one point: Airbus did have the clout to get the engine manufacturers to power the A330, which used some of the biggest engines available at the time. They were derivatives of the models already powering the 747, 767, and MD-11 (with the exception of the Trent 700, which was an all-new engine by RR).
I'm not sure how, because in the late 1980s Airbus was not the massive player it is today, but they got RR to launch the Trent line.
SEPilot wrote:As to RR launching the Trent line for Airbus, I understand that RR was desperate to improve their market penetration (which at the time was about 8%) and so were more than willing to team up with Airbus on that (probably hoping that Airbus would do exactly what it did in becoming a challenger to Boeing), but it was not a completely new engine, as it was basically an improved RB-211.
DocLightning wrote:SEPilot wrote:And while Boeing had the clout with the engine manufacturers to get them to try an engine big enough for the 777, neither MD nor Airbus did. So Boeing was the only one who could build a twin the size of the 777.
I'll disagree on one point: Airbus did have the clout to get the engine manufacturers to power the A330, which used some of the biggest engines available at the time. They were derivatives of the models already powering the 747, 767, and MD-11 (with the exception of the Trent 700, which was an all-new engine by RR).
I'm not sure how, because in the late 1980s Airbus was not the massive player it is today, but they got RR to launch the Trent line.
atypical wrote:If we are just considering the the absence of the 777, any estimation of another model's sales can't be validated one way or another. The absence of the 777 is a two variable issue:
The assumption would be no 777 is made AND Boeing cedes the market. Boeing was clear it was going to enter the market, had it not done that with the 777 it still would have with something. Very possibly it's own tri-jet but one that has a clean sheet design and and all the material and production benefits that went into the 777. One possible outcome is that Boeing's tri-jet still performs well enough to hurt MD sales so either design results in the same outcome.
blacksoviet wrote:A clean sheet trijet would have destroyed the MD-11, perhaps even more than the 777 did. A Boeing trijet would be able to carry more cargo than a 777.
JeremyB wrote:ACATROYAL wrote:Just curious what was the longest route any airline flew the MD-11?
Delta for sure pushed their MD-11's to the limit, with JFK-NRT, ATL-NRT but LAX-HKG would be the longest non-stop route ever flown with the MD-11.
mitchell747 wrote:there would definately be a lot more md11 around. there would be a lot more planes around if the 777 wasnt made
DocLightning wrote:SEPilot wrote:And while Boeing had the clout with the engine manufacturers to get them to try an engine big enough for the 777, neither MD nor Airbus did. So Boeing was the only one who could build a twin the size of the 777.
I'll disagree on one point: Airbus did have the clout to get the engine manufacturers to power the A330, which used some of the biggest engines available at the time. They were derivatives of the models already powering the 747, 767, and MD-11 (with the exception of the Trent 700, which was an all-new engine by RR).
I'm not sure how, because in the late 1980s Airbus was not the massive player it is today, but they got RR to launch the Trent line.
DocLightning wrote:SEPilot wrote:As to RR launching the Trent line for Airbus, I understand that RR was desperate to improve their market penetration (which at the time was about 8%) and so were more than willing to team up with Airbus on that (probably hoping that Airbus would do exactly what it did in becoming a challenger to Boeing), but it was not a completely new engine, as it was basically an improved RB-211.
By that standard, RR has never built a completely new engine because every engine they have ever made seems to be an evolution from prior models.
Devilfish wrote:
That Boeing did not push through with both says a lot about their viability in the marketplace. Perhaps this might have better chances in the future
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files ... 201-01.jpg
SpaceshipDC10 wrote:mitchell747 wrote:there would definately be a lot more md11 around. there would be a lot more planes around if the 777 wasnt made
I tend to think the MD-11 would have had a much chance had it been launched in order to enter service sometimes during the mid-80s, on time and delivering the announced performances for long-range flights.. Then MDC could have evolved with a new wide-body twin to cover for intra-Asian routes first before making that twin ever more versatile, just like the A330.
Nothing seriously new was proposed and produced at Long Beach since the launch of the DC-10. Everything was just an update where the competition was designing/proposing better families of more advanced aircraft. The guys from STL were too narrow minded with their approach to commercial aircraft.
keesje wrote:If it had met its specs a version with more powerfull (65-70klbs) GENX engines, a 400 seat stretch and new cabin could have had better payload-range then the 777-300ER at lower operating costs, cheaper engine MRO, probably lower sfc.
keesje wrote:If it had met its specs a version with more powerfull (65-70klbs) GENX engines, a 400 seat stretch and new cabin could have had better payload-range then the 777-300ER at lower operating costs, cheaper engine MRO, probably lower sfc.
keesje wrote:If it had met its specs a version with more powerfull (65-70klbs) GENX engines, a 400 seat stretch and new cabin could have had better payload-range then the 777-300ER at lower operating costs, cheaper engine MRO, probably lower sfc.
Poking the 777, I should know better..
blacksoviet wrote:atypical wrote:If we are just considering the the absence of the 777, any estimation of another model's sales can't be validated one way or another. The absence of the 777 is a two variable issue:
The assumption would be no 777 is made AND Boeing cedes the market. Boeing was clear it was going to enter the market, had it not done that with the 777 it still would have with something. Very possibly it's own tri-jet but one that has a clean sheet design and and all the material and production benefits that went into the 777. One possible outcome is that Boeing's tri-jet still performs well enough to hurt MD sales so either design results in the same outcome.
A clean sheet trijet would have destroyed the MD-11, perhaps even more than the 777 did. A Boeing trijet would be able to carry more cargo than a 777.
keesje wrote:If it had met its specs a version with more powerfull (65-70klbs) GENX engines, a 400 seat stretch and new cabin could have had better payload-range then the 777-300ER at lower operating costs, cheaper engine MRO, probably lower sfc.
Poking the 777, I should know better..
keesje wrote:If one engine pops after V1 it would have 20% more power left, less asymetric, so have superior MTOW / payload. Specially from short/hot runways, like many in Asia.
keesje wrote:The 777 GE engines are not famous for their low MRO costs.
keesje wrote:ETOPS wouldn't exist.
Well they're evidently cheaper than four A340 RR engines in terms of MRO considering RR agreed to lower their TotalCare and spares prices to match GE to improve A340-600 operating costs. And if GE charges a fair bit for their GE90 engines MRO, one would think they would for their GEnx engines, too.
Yes it would. ETOPs applies to tai-jets and quads now, as well as twins (hence the new designation of ExTended OPerationS).
keesje wrote:Putting a GENX in a MD11 tail would mean a total redesign of the tail section and seems a kind a un-feasible to me.
keesje wrote:Well they're evidently cheaper than four A340 RR engines in terms of MRO considering RR agreed to lower their TotalCare and spares prices to match GE to improve A340-600 operating costs. And if GE charges a fair bit for their GE90 engines MRO, one would think they would for their GEnx engines, too.
No, for the GENX they have competition and future sales campaigns.
keesje wrote:Yes it would. ETOPs applies to tai-jets and quads now, as well as twins (hence the new designation of ExTended OPerationS).
I remember CF6 were standardized on ETOPS with many airlines out of standardization considerations. 747s going ETOPS I haven't seen.
keesje wrote:Putting a GENX in a MD11 tail would mean a total redesign of the tail section and seems a kind a un-feasible to me.
keesje wrote:The fact Boeing made the A747-8i (30?) ETOPS out of standardisation considerations seems midly convincing ETOPS applies to all tri jets & quads.
keesje wrote:Poking the 777 a bit now and then is funny, it's a kind of success story many relate too & take personal
DfwRevolution wrote:Maybe I should start a thread on how a 727 reengined with the GTF would really spank the A321neo.
Devilfish wrote:DfwRevolution wrote:Maybe I should start a thread on how a 727 reengined with the GTF would really spank the A321neo.
Perhaps you should make that the 7J7... ...
http://airwaysnews.com/galleries/19048.jpg
http://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7e ... _webp=true
.....as mounting a centerline GTF (or UDF) on the 727 can be very problematic