Posted on 12/28/2014 8:10:57 PM PST by ConservativeStatement
Boeing (NYSE: BA ) extended its sales lead over archrival Airbus (NASDAQOTH: EADSY ) in December.
In its latest update on airplane orders, released last week, Boeing confirmed that 2014 "gross" orders for commercial aircraft reached 1,423 by mid-December, versus 1,328 planes for Airbus (at last report). After cancellations -- 106 at Boeing, but nearly three times as many at Airbus -- the U.S. aircraft maker's lead over its European rival only got bigger.
This is good news for Boeing -- but, as we'll see in a moment, it might be bad news for one of Boeing's favorite customers: the U.S. president.
(Excerpt) Read more at fool.com ...
Yep- here are hundreds of planes built by companies that no longer exist that are still flying. As long as there is demand for parts, somebody will make them.
What’s wrong with the President touching the tarmac with a Cessna?
“The VC-137 was only retired in 2001. SAM 26000 is still in airworthy condition. We could also resurrect the VC-118.”
Gotta stay cutting edge - let’s include the new Iranian Suicide Drone.
Eh, Airbus reached its peak with Concorde, IMO. It seemed that the A380 was at best, a middling attempt to outdo the 747—unlike the 747, it requires major ground ops modification.
Also, the 727 makes somewhat of a statement: It’s built to last. The Air Force, for example has a LOT of older first-generation military transport jets, derived from the 707. Some have been recently refurbished, and the oldest aircraft, when due for retirement in 2040-2050ish, will be 80-90 years old. Think about that for a minute.
Can dropping fuel prices save it?
She may not be seen in passenger carrying livery, but the 747 is an incredibly capable cargo ship as well.
...
It was initially designed to be a freighter and was in competition with what became the C5. That’s why the cockpit is so high, so the nose could be hinged and cargo loaded in from the front.
Good point there. Though I was trying to compromise with the guy who proposed bringing back the DC-3. It seemed like a fair compromise.
They are common as heck now, it was an apparition then.
Fabulous aerodynamics, silky smooth ride, typical cruise Mach of 0.84 at FL350, carries half a city, so durable it was used in the Battle of the Bulge...we could go on.
74 be flyin' for many moons to come, it's just really hard to beat.
Also, if we brought back any of the piston-engine aircraft, it could give fuel scientists a shot in the arm to FINALLY develop a decent, unleaded avgas.
I did not know that. Thanks Guys, I’m always trying to learn more.
CC
Nothing against Cessnas, but our genius president has dreamed up some far superior, a fantastical modified electric golf cart as Air FOREce One he dubs Choomy-Choomy Bong Bong.
some=something
The future of piston aero engines is diesel. There are a few on the market that burn jet A, which is cheaper, safer and more widely available than avgas will ever be.
I was working at Lockheed Shipbuilding in Seattle when the 747 was undergoing its flight certification. The shipyard was north of Boeing Field, west of the flight path out of Boeing Field.
I could see the planes taking off through a multi-pane window. A Learjet would zip across the window. A 727 would go across a little slower but still fast. But the 747 seemed like it took forever to make it across. Yet they all were going about the same airspeed.
I know it was all a case of perception, but at the time when 747s had not been seen outside of the Seattle area, it was an impressive perception!
That may be a problem. Years ago, when the 777 came out, there was talk of selling to the military, but Boeing nixed the idea. Seems Boeing had developed a new aluminum alloy for use in the airframe, and was unwilling to release the formula. That was not acceptable to the Pentagon, they need to know all the particulars of every piece of their aircraft. Boeing was afraid their alloy would be leaked by Pentagon staffers, so they chose not to offer military versions of the 777.
This may be obsolete information - I read it years ago in an aviation magazine - but I think the ban on military 777's is still in effect. Boeing sells militarized versions of their airliners, but AFAIK they are 737's, 747's, or 767's.
The General Electric CF6-80c2 engines that power this plane are iconic themselves. Awesome doesn’t even begin to describe this engine if you see one naked up close.
There's a whole bunch of airports in the world that can't handle an A380.
The 747 required lots of terminal modifications when it first came out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.