Search the archive:
 YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
 
   
 
  Simviation Forum › Real World › Real Aviation › 747-8
(Moderators: Mitch., Fly2e, ozzy72, beaky, Clipper, JBaymore, Bob70, BigTruck)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
747-8 (Read 1070 times)
Reply #30 - Nov 21st, 2005 at 3:52pm
born_2_fly   Ex Member

 
Quote:
There's no brainer that the 787 will be technically more advanced than the Airbus A380. We all know that.


What makes you say, or think that? To be blunt, almost all aircraft technology is similar nowerdays. So unless a huge jump is made with some radical new technology, this comment is hardly fair.

Also, why do all of Boeings initial ideas for new aircraft have those silly wavy winglets, when they are so adament that raked wintips are the answer?

Born_2_fly
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #31 - Nov 21st, 2005 at 4:02pm

C   Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144
 *****
 
Quote:
I wouldn't believe the statistics too much. Especially when they're for an aircraft that doesn't exist yet.


Well said that man...

Quote:
So unless a huge jump is made with some radical new technology, this comment is hardly fair.


Maybe Rolls Royce are developing an engine that runs without fuel... Wink Grin
« Last Edit: Nov 21st, 2005 at 5:04pm by C »  
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #32 - Nov 21st, 2005 at 4:08pm

Woodlouse2002   Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender: male
 Posts: 12574
 *****
 
Quote:
Maybe Rolls Royce are developing an engine that runs without fuel... Wink Grin

Engines that Airbus will be able to use also. Inless they're incompatable like Windows and Mac... Grin
 
Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #33 - Nov 21st, 2005 at 5:32pm

Nexus   Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender: male
 Posts: 3282
 *****
 

Quote:
What makes you say, or think that? To be blunt, almost all aircraft technology is similar nowerdays. So unless a huge jump is made with some radical new technology, this comment is hardly fair.

Also, why do all of Boeings initial ideas for new aircraft have those silly wavy winglets, when they are so adament that raked wintips are the answer?

Born_2_fly


The 787 will use even more composite materials than Airbus. Around 50% of the aircraft will be made of graphite, glass/carbon fibre etc. That is some 12% more than the A380.

Boeing has also decided (about time) to not rely on bleed air for air condition and hydraulics. Instead 4 225kW-generators will take care of the electric supply. This off course means higher engine thrust and will furthermore improve fuel efficiency since conventional aircrafts need pipes, heat exchangers and other heavy equipment  to cool the hot bleed air (which is some 1000C at times).

Shall I go on?
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #34 - Nov 21st, 2005 at 5:42pm

Icelandair Pilot   Offline
Colonel
Dang, its good to be a
gangster
Boston

Gender: male
 Posts: 663
 *****
 
Quote:
I wouldn't believe the statistics too much. Especially when they're for an aircraft that doesn't exist yet.



I would. You can tell anyways. Smaller, lighter, faster.
 
757-200&&757-300&&767-300&&787-8/9&&------------------------------------&&ULTIMATE AIRCRAFT COMBO!
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #35 - Nov 26th, 2005 at 6:45am
born_2_fly   Ex Member

 
Quote:
Boeing has also
decided

(about time) to not rely on bleed air for air condition and hydraulics. Instead 4 225kW-generators will take care of the electric supply. This off course means higher engine thrust and will furthermore improve fuel efficiency since conventional aircrafts need pipes, heat exchangers and other heavy equipment  to cool the hot bleed air (which is some 1000C at times).



Notice decided, the technology to do so has been available for quite some time. Its not like Boeing has just plucked it out of thin air. Airbus just didnt decide to use the technology, and im sure they have their reasons to do so, it may be more economical towards what THEIR customers want. Carbon fibre and graphite isnt always best for every type of aircraft. So just remember this technology isnt all that new, it was available to Airbus but they just chose not to make a plane 100% out of this
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #36 - Nov 26th, 2005 at 6:50am

cspyro21   Offline
Colonel
MOUSTACHE PENGUIN
SPARTAAA

Posts: 5558
 *****
 
Wow!!

It looks like a 747/7e7 hybrid!!!

Grin
 
...
^Click Me For Studio V!^
Air Training Corps Cadet Feb 06 - June 08
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #37 - Nov 26th, 2005 at 8:03am

chomp_rock   Offline
Colonel
I must confess, I was
born at a very early
age.

Gender: male
 Posts: 2718
 *****
 
Quote:
I wouldn't believe the statistics too much. Especially when they're for an aircraft that doesn't exist yet.


Aye woodlouse, but Boeing has a knack for surpassing their projections for performance.  They tend to underestimate their aircraft.

That said it's a beautiful aircraft, looks like a shapelier version of the of the normal 747-400, like it's big sister if you will Grin
 
AMD Athlon 64 3700+&&GeForce FX5200 256Mb&&1GB DDR400 DC&&Seagate 500Gb SATA-300 HDD&&Windows XP Professional X64 Edition
&&&&That's right, I'm now using an AMD! I decided to give them another try and they kicked the pants off of my P4 3.4!
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #38 - Nov 26th, 2005 at 8:25am

Nexus   Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender: male
 Posts: 3282
 *****
 
Quote:
Notice decided, the technology to do so has been available for quite some time. Its not like Boeing has just plucked it out of thin air. Airbus just didnt decide to use the technology, and im sure they have their reasons to do so, it may be more economical towards what THEIR customers want. Carbon fibre and graphite isnt always best for every type of aircraft. So just remember this technology isnt all that new, it was available to Airbus but they just chose not to make a plane 100% out of this


Boeing has yet to unveil how they will handle the "non bleed-air" solution. No-one knows how their engineers have designed it.
And tell me why customers (airlines) DON'T want to have even more efficient engines, and lesser fuelburn?

Airbus couldn't have the same solution simply because their are NO engines to choose from today. So the technology is indeed new since there are no products on the market today  Wink
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #39 - Nov 26th, 2005 at 1:02pm

Woodlouse2002   Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender: male
 Posts: 12574
 *****
 
Boeing doesn't design engines. They buy them from other companies such as Rolls-Royce. Therefore any innovations there will be avaliable to everyone and not just one company.

Also it's all very well saying that you're going to make a plane out of carbon fibre and other composites. But doing so and keeping the whole package down at a competative price is going to be a challenge.
 
Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #40 - Nov 26th, 2005 at 2:08pm

Nexus   Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender: male
 Posts: 3282
 *****
 
Quote:
Boeing doesn't design engines. They buy them from other companies such as Rolls-Royce. Therefore any innovations there will be avaliable to everyone and not just one company.


Believe me, there are a wee bit more details when it comes to buying engines. It's not like when you go shopping for cereals.
Granted bleed-less engines are being offered on the A350 aswell, but GE's bleed less engine was designed to meet Boeings aggressive demands for their 787...and wouldn't you know. Airbus jumped on the bandwagon aswell

"Based on the architecture of the renowned GE90 engine, the GEnx is being designed to meet the aggressive performance targets for the twin-engine 787"

So the engine industry doesnt quite work as you believe Woodlouse. Boeing developed their aircraft with close cooperation with General Electric.

I dont' see the point in arguing that the 787 wont be technical superior, because it will be. Aviation industry is gong to take a huge leap forward.
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #41 - Nov 26th, 2005 at 2:12pm

Craig.   Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender: male
 Posts: 18590
 *****
 
The whole reason we have the A350 on the table is because of those Bleedless engines. When it was first announced Airbus came along and said, thats fine, we will shove them under our A330's and we're set. However because the design of the A330 wouldn't allow it, and Airbus then saw how big of a leap the 787 would be, they had little choice but to launch the A350.
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #42 - Nov 26th, 2005 at 2:18pm

Nexus   Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender: male
 Posts: 3282
 *****
 
Quote:
The whole reason we have the A350 on the table is because of those Bleedless engines. When it was first announced Airbus came along and said, thats fine, we will shove them under our A330's and we're set. However because the design of the A330 wouldn't allow it, and Airbus then saw how big of a leap the 787 would be, they had little choice but to launch the A350.


Agree totally.
But one has to wonder...how the heck will airbus be able to afford the A350  ???
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #43 - Nov 26th, 2005 at 2:19pm

Hagar   Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159
 *****
 
Quote:
So the engine industry doesnt quite work as you believe Woodlouse. Boeing developed their aircraft with close cooperation with General Electric.

This might be true but other aircraft manufacturers do the same thing. Consequently any technological improvements are available to everyone.

I don't wish to become involved in an argument as to which is better. There is a certain amount of politics involved & opinions are often influenced by where people happen to live. Time will tell whether one or the other is the more successful. In the end these are two manufacturers in competition with each other which can only be good for the industry as a whole, if not the aircraft manufacturers themselves. There is a great deal of money at stake here & if one fails it could involve bankruptcy & the loss of thousands of jobs. I've always thought that there's room for both.
 
...

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #44 - Nov 26th, 2005 at 2:21pm

Craig.   Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender: male
 Posts: 18590
 *****
 
Quote:
Agree totally.
But one has to wonder...how the heck will airbus be able to afford the A350  ???

Money from various European countries as always. However right now Britain are actually saying they wont support paying them any funds until the A380 starts paying them back.
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
  « Home ‹ Board Top of this page

Simviation Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5 AE!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge