Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31

Thread: Boeing to take on Airbus with (1000 seat) giant 797

  1. #1
    Jay
    Jay is offline
    Tamizhanban Senior Contributor Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,692

    Boeing to take on Airbus with (1000 seat) giant 797

    Boeing is preparing a 1000 passenger jet that could reshape the Air travel industry for the next 100 years. The radical Blended Wing design has been developed by Boeing in cooperation with the NASA Langley Research Center. The mammoth plane will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to the 747ís 211 feet, and is designed to fit within the newly created terminals used for the 555 seat Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide. The new 797 is in direct response to the Airbus A380 which has racked up159 orders, but has not yet flown any passengers.

    ....Boeing decide to kill its 747X stretched super jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown by airline companies, but has continued to develop the ultimate Airbus crusher 797 for years at its Phantom Works research facility in Long Beach, Calif. The Airbus A380 has been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated $13 billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage now that Airbus has committed to the older style tubular aircraft for decades to come.

    ....There are several big advantages to the blended wing design, the most important being the lift to drag ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, with overall weight reduced by 25%, making it an estimated 33% more efficient than the A380, and making Airbusís $13 billion dollar investment look pretty shaky. High body rigidity is another key factor in blended wing aircraft, it reduces turbulence and creates less stress on the air frame which adds to efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous 8800 nautical mile range with its 1000 passengers flying comfortably at mach .88 or 654 mph cruising speed (another advantage over the Airbus tube-and-wing designed A380ís 570 mph)

    ....The exact date for introduction is unclear, yet the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for civilian air supremacy.



    http://www.newtechspy.com/articles06/boeing797.html
    A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

  2. #2
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    22,784
    I questioned the practicality the minute I laid my eyes on the A380. The damned thing is just such an ugly brute. My suspicions were right. It's an overweight piece of outdated technology.

    This new 797 concept is interesting. However, I must ask the same question: is there a need, or economical, to stuff 1000 people into a jet liner?

    The new trend is to have light, advanced, economical, medium sized jets that can fly direct routes rather than the old fashioned hub-and-spoke system. I don't want to change planes. I don't want overnight stays. I want to get in and out as hassle free as possible. Boeing had the answer in the 787.

    What Boeing really should do is shrink that 797 concept down to 787 size. It will be even smaller, cheaper, faster, more efficient than the 787 carrying the same number of passengers, able to reach more small air ports.

  3. #3
    Jay
    Jay is offline
    Tamizhanban Senior Contributor Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,692
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut
    What Boeing really should do is shrink that 797 concept down to 787 size. It will be even smaller, cheaper, faster, more efficient than the 787 carrying the same number of passengers, able to reach more small air ports.
    Prolly Boeing wants a piece of pie in that segment, looking at the order list for Airbus. Anyway, major airports are being upgraded to accomodate 380's, and those can also accomodate 797.

    The question is how economical this bird would be, and how much money they are going to spend on this bird. I heard that Airbus didnt really make that much money on 380, but may be it helps them not to layoff their workers.
    Last edited by Jay; 25 Apr 06, at 08:24.
    A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

  4. #4
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    22,784
    Airbus won't make money on the 380, especially with the penalties they have to pay due to the delay.

    I think the number of airports in the US that will accommodate the 380 can be counted on one hand, if any at all. It's unwise if Boeing goes with a super jumbo. Maybe something using the blended wing-body design that can carry 400 - 500 passengers to replace the 747, but 30% more economical, would be the future. The 747 is a bit long on the tooth. A revolutionary design will be fit to replace it.

  5. #5
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    4,993
    The biggest problem is the loading and unloading times. With increasing passenger capacity, the loading time will take much longer because there's only one gate to embark and disembark on.

    If the airport would create two or three gates to speed up the loading/unloading time, that would be good.

    Bigger is good because it means cheaper tickets. It cost less to fly 1000 people on a single plane than to fly 1000 people on several planes when you factor in maintenance, gas, airport fees, and landing fees. WIth the oil prices going up, I don't think people will mind spending a couple more hours. Besides these planes are only useful for long transatlantic, pacific flights, or continental flights.

  6. #6
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    4,993
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut
    Airbus won't make money on the 380, especially with the penalties they have to pay due to the delay.

    I think the number of airports in the US that will accommodate the 380 can be counted on one hand, if any at all. It's unwise if Boeing goes with a super jumbo. Maybe something using the blended wing-body design that can carry 400 - 500 passengers to replace the 747, but 30% more economical, would be the future. The 747 is a bit long on the tooth. A revolutionary design will be fit to replace it.
    A revolutionary design won't do because it is revolutionary in design meaning that it will take at least a decade to get the bugs out of the new design and new support systems must be built in to accommodate the new design.

    Remember this kind of size is only good for transatlantic, transpacific, and continental flights so you don't need that many airports. I would say about 10 to 15 airports in US would be enough.

  7. #7
    Jay
    Jay is offline
    Tamizhanban Senior Contributor Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster
    The biggest problem is the loading and unloading times. With increasing passenger capacity, the loading time will take much longer because there's only one gate to embark and disembark on.

    If the airport would create two or three gates to speed up the loading/unloading time, that would be good.
    Jumbo's have 2 gates, one for the first and business class, rest for the 'K' class.

    Bigger is good because it means cheaper tickets. It cost less to fly 1000 people on a single plane than to fly 1000 people on several planes when you factor in maintenance, gas, airport fees, and landing fees. WIth the oil prices going up, I don't think people will mind spending a couple more hours. Besides these planes are only useful for long transatlantic, pacific flights, or continental flights.
    True, but we will have to look at the consumption of this flight and see if its economical. Defn you can save on landing fees, but then the airports might start charging more based on the seats. If its economical, I guess, you could use it for hub to hub transport as well, like Chicago to LA. Miami to the north.
    A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

  8. #8
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    22,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster
    A revolutionary design won't do because it is revolutionary in design meaning that it will take at least a decade to get the bugs out of the new design and new support systems must be built in to accommodate the new design.

    Remember this kind of size is only good for transatlantic, transpacific, and continental flights so you don't need that many airports. I would say about 10 to 15 airports in US would be enough.
    Yeah, but something like this will be in service for 40 years or more. It's worth taking 15 years to come up with one.

    Actually I doubt there'll be even 10 airports in the US cleared to take the A380. LAX and one of the NYC airports might. Maybe one in Miami. I don't think the enthusiasm in the states is very high for the A380. The cost of modification is just too high.

    Here's another problem that popped up recently. It appears the A380's wake turbulance is so horrible that the take off interval has to be lengthened to double the normal time. That means the volume of passengers moved is still the same because we're moving twice the number of people, but take twice as long.

  9. #9
    Banned Captain Drunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jan 06
    Location
    Goa, India
    Posts
    771
    First flow in 1988, standing 7 storeys high the Antonov 225 "Mriya" can carry approximately 1500 passengers, 3 times that of the Boeing 747-400. But such large jets are not commercially feasible as most of the time they fly only half occupied, its speculated smaller types like Boeing 737s and Airbus 320s that save on fuel are a better option.


  10. #10
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    4,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay
    Jumbo's have 2 gates, one for the first and business class, rest for the 'K' class.


    True, but we will have to look at the consumption of this flight and see if its economical. Defn you can save on landing fees, but then the airports might start charging more based on the seats. If its economical, I guess, you could use it for hub to hub transport as well, like Chicago to LA. Miami to the north.
    Two gates won't be feasible because the rest of the K class consists of 350 people while the first and business class may consist of 150 to 200. You need one more gate to speed up the loading times.

    Airports might see the other way around since more people would mean more people buying stuff at the airports, paying for parking, etc.

  11. #11
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    4,993
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut
    Yeah, but something like this will be in service for 40 years or more. It's worth taking 15 years to come up with one.

    Actually I doubt there'll be even 10 airports in the US cleared to take the A380. LAX and one of the NYC airports might. Maybe one in Miami. I don't think the enthusiasm in the states is very high for the A380. The cost of modification is just too high.

    Here's another problem that popped up recently. It appears the A380's wake turbulance is so horrible that the take off interval has to be lengthened to double the normal time. That means the volume of passengers moved is still the same because we're moving twice the number of people, but take twice as long.
    I don't think it is gonna matter that much because that's only for landing which only takes a certain portion of the flying time like around 10%.

  12. #12
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    22,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster
    I don't think it is gonna matter that much because that's only for landing which only takes a certain portion of the flying time like around 10%.
    I was thinking the flow volume of passengers.

    If the A380 with 800 passengers forces the plane after it to take off in 2 min rather than 1 min, then wouldn't it be like 2 747s each with 400 passengers taking off in 1 min interval?

    Time is money. The less time a passenger spent at the airport, the more money the airport and the airline make. We want to move as many people, as quickly as possible to maximize our profit. Lengthening the take off time between flights costs money.

  13. #13
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    4,993
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut
    I was thinking the flow volume of passengers.

    If the A380 with 800 passengers forces the plane after it to take off in 2 min rather than 1 min, then wouldn't it be like 2 747s each with 400 passengers taking off in 1 min interval?

    Time is money. The less time a passenger spent at the airport, the more money the airport and the airline make. We want to move as many people, as quickly as possible to maximize our profit. Lengthening the take off time between flights costs money.
    No it doesn't work that way. If you have two 747s, then you got to factor in crew maintenance checkup, preflight checkup, tower clearance, and not to mention the fact that you will be taking two spots on the queuing instead of one.

  14. #14
    Senior Contributor Dago's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Feb 06
    Location
    San Diego, Califonia
    Posts
    1,037
    Old design.

    Didn't Boeing abandon it during the Mid 90's?

    http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/q0108.shtml



    Blended Wing Body concept

    A completely different path that Boeing may choose to pursue in the near future is the Blended-Wing-Body, or BWB. Despite your rather unappreciative comments, some of our staff have had the opportunity to meet with and talk to one of the concept's creators, and we've found it to be a most interesting design. The BWB is related to the flying wing, but is a somewhat more sophisticated concept that resulted from a study to determine the optimum low-drag shape to contain a given volume of passenger space. The resulting fuselage resembles a flattened sphere that tapers down and blends into the outboard wings, hence the name Blended-Wing-Body. The thick center-section could hold some 500 to 800 passengers, as illustrated below. Additional studies have focused on smaller variants in the 250- to 300-passenger range, and a recently reported study indicated that a cruise speed of Mach 0.9 over a range of 7,500 to 8,900 nm (13,875 to 16,465 km) might be an optimum design point.


    The BWB was first created by the commercial aircraft division of McDonnell Douglas (MDD), a firm that was purchased by Boeing in the mid-1990s. Though Boeing expressed little interest in continuing most of MDD's projects, they have shown the foresight to carry on low-level development of the revolutionary BWB. However, Boeing has not yet provided any indication that the design will go into full-scale development or production. While such an aircraft could potentially reduce operating costs significantly, concerns have been raised about compatibility with existing airport infrastructure and the difficulty of evacuating so many people from the deep interior cabin in an emergency. In addition, many airlines are worried that passengers may be unwilling to fly an aircraft that is so different looking from what they are used to.

    That pretty much sums up what we know of the possible future directions Boeing may take, but Airbus is even more of a mystery. The multinational conglomerate has focused so much of its efforts on developing the latest variants of the A330 and A340 as well as the completely new A380 that little is known of what its next big project might be.



  15. #15
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    14,725
    Nice looking aircraft
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Top Secret Boeing 797
    By 101st Airborne in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 12 Apr 08,, 14:25
  2. Late delivery of Airbus A380, stock plunges
    By Sea Toby in forum International Economy
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 20 Jun 06,, 22:57
  3. China's general economy info
    By oneman28 in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 27 May 06,, 16:31
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05 Aug 05,, 02:24
  5. Airbus unveils giant A380 plane
    By Jay in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09 Feb 05,, 09:19

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •