The A380 doesn't have the range.
To: COEXERJ145; microgood; liberallarry; cmsgop; shaggy eel; RayChuang88; Larry Lucido; namsman; ...
If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
To: Paleo Conservative
The current CEO of Airbust said that not a single order for the new 747 will happen this year.
He's like the guy from the fedex commercial who thinks you get "french" benefits.
3 posted on
05/25/2006 9:13:00 PM PDT by
Proud_USA_Republican
(We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. - Hillary Clinton)
To: Paleo Conservative
It's like the B52. It's never gonna die. What a testament to the engineers of the 1960s.
4 posted on
05/25/2006 9:13:35 PM PDT by
July 4th
(A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
To: Paleo Conservative
the "747-8 burns 40 per cent less fuel than the first 747 and is 30
per cent quieter than the 747-400s in service with Qantas".
Talk about private enterprise and competition spurring on innovation.
And reducing fuel consumption and burning of fossil fuels.
You'd almost swear some sort of invisible hand had a part in it.
9 posted on
05/25/2006 9:28:43 PM PDT by
VOA
To: Paleo Conservative; Roke; Puking Dog
Peace also says that Boeing is also looking at fly-by-wire control for a number of the 747-8's control surfaces.At the Paris Air show some years back an Airbus (I think it was 320 or 330) using fly by wire flew into the ground doing a low slow pass. I know it saves weight but I like a mechanical redundancy system.
Roke or Puking Dog do know what caused that crash. Also any word out yet on the South West 737 that skidded of the runway this winter.
10 posted on
05/25/2006 9:32:01 PM PDT by
cpdiii
(Socialism is popular with the ruling class. It gives legitimacy to tyranny and despotism.)
To: Paleo Conservative
OK, let me be the first:
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!
13 posted on
05/25/2006 9:43:41 PM PDT by
Henchster
(Free Republic - the BEST site on the web!)
To: Paleo Conservative
Any engineers from Boeing on here at Freerepublic ? anyone know anyone from Being ?
I was wondering ?
To make the 747-8I even lighter , I was wondering if they can instead of making the panels that are under the fuselage were the triangle ram air ducts are to the landing gears that are made out of aluminum, with aluminum brackets, make all of the area and panels out of composites before the final design freeze is set this fall.
I saw a picture of a 747 that was in a ground accident were this area was damaged, and this area of the plane looks like some kind of outer shroud next to the fuselage.
If they can redesign it with composite panels, and some how put extra fuel tanks, they can make it lighter and improve the range even more.
Boeing ? maybe you can look into that idea and consider to make the 747 even lighter and improve the range.
To: Paleo Conservative
To: Paleo Conservative
Another plus for the 747 is the intimate upper deck, which is more like a private executive jet and is the first zone of business class to fill up.
It seems they could stretch the upper deck to add more of a second floor.
31 posted on
05/26/2006 5:51:51 AM PDT by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: Paleo Conservative
The engineer that put the hump on the front of the 747 was a freep'n genius. 747 without a doubt the the most recognizable aircraft in history.
32 posted on
05/26/2006 5:52:00 AM PDT by
devane617
(It's McCain and a Rat -- Now what?)
To: Paleo Conservative
I am tired of being husted on to cattle cars, crammed in like a sardine, and tossed about.
I am flying home tomorrow - then I will stay there.
38 posted on
05/26/2006 7:02:45 AM PDT by
patton
(What the heck just happened, here?)
To: Paleo Conservative
They want longer flights?
I know very little about aviation. However, why couldn't tankers be used?
39 posted on
05/26/2006 7:15:37 AM PDT by
El Gran Salseron
(The FR Canteen's Resident Equal Opportunity Male Chauvinist Pig! :-))
To: Paleo Conservative; VOA
"According to Jeff Peace, vice-president and program manager for 747, the "747-8... is 30 per cent quieter than the 747-400s in service with Qantas".Sad to say, a 30% reduction in noise equates to a 1.5 dB reduction, an amount that is barely detectible by the human ear.
41 posted on
05/26/2006 7:25:56 AM PDT by
Redbob
To: Paleo Conservative
The 797?
48 posted on
05/26/2006 11:59:57 AM PDT by
GunnyHartman
(The DNC, misunderestimating Dubya's strategery since 2000.)
To: Paleo Conservative
Comments on possible Qantas expansion to DFW, or other airports.
LAX is at capacity. Qantas moved its Sydney departures from the Bradley terminal to Terminal 4 (the American Airlines terminal). Realize Terminal 2 is also used for international arrivals and departures by Air New Zealand.
While LAX might be fine to route traffic from the Rockies west to Australia, it cannot handle more flights, so Qantas needs an option for midwest, northeast, and southeast connections. Dallas is very well suited for this.
I have not been through the new DFW international terminal. However, I have been through LAX's Bradley terminal plenty of times, twice to catch a Qantas flight to Melbourne. While the check-in area is okay, the boarding concourse is a hopeless mess. It clearly was not built with enough space to handle six to eight simultaneous 747 boardings.
61 posted on
06/19/2006 10:39:21 PM PDT by
magellan
( by)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson