What are Boeing's plans?

Pooh,


Hmm, I looked for the article I read that number in, but can't find it.
Will try to call Airbus later today to verify. But if you consider the
amount of avionics and standard aviation equipment going in, it makes
sense.

I see trouble looming as the asian countries get the expertise
and no longer require *us* !


Oh, I agree. Fully.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
Fuel efficiency ( cost per seat-mile ) is what it's about. This factor
is
skewed by amortised cost of old but serviceable a/c - like the 727s I
just
mentioend. Not efficient - but the lease purchase was paid off decades
back.

I tell you what--you want to start up a new low-cost airline here in the
states with 727's, be my guest---but don't be planning on getting many
financial backers.

Question - how efficient is a 727 re-engined with the RR Tay conversion?
These seem popular with the higher end of biz-jet operators.

I think someone on here, though may have been on TV, said that the
difference between cruise speeds on various airliners is to do with the
critical speed of the wing. Above this speed, the thrust required is much
more, so you use much more fuel. The 747 was designed for a faster
speed in this respect so has a higher cruise speed? I think the 727 was
quoted as being quite good at M 0.75 but not at 0.85? Something like
that?

Paul

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Dylan Smith wrote:
Don't forget the Trident!

If de Havilland hadn't been obliged to scale down the Trident to suit BEA
and then later scale it back up again ( to suit BEA ! ) , it would have
been far more sucessful.

Indeed. You could say it was tremendously successful eventually, but by
then it was known as the Boeing 727. Boeing apparently hired 9 of the
Trident's designers and they made one without one hand tied behind
their backs.

Paul

"David CL Francis" wrote in message
...
Just dug out a Concorde brochure, written when they still optimistically
hoped to sell many and fly them all around the world.

Pacific routes are included as follows

West Coast of USA; Anchorage, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San
Diego and Acapulco were all shown as legs to Honolulu. Onward links from
Honolulu were to Tokyo and to Auckland and Sydney via a stop at Nandi.

West Coast USA to Australia in 2 stops - that's all.

If any more Concordes had been made, they would have been the
"B" model. These would have had leading edge devices and other
high lift tricks to lower take-off and lading speed. They also had
more efficient engines. They apparently would have used 30% less
fuel, giving the plane a longer range (I'm not sure I have this absolutely
right, I'm quoting from my memory of reading Brian Trubshaw's
autobiography).

Regarding paying back of the design costs, it may well have happened
if the airlines had taken up the 70+ options they initially specified.

Of course, as has been mentioned, the venture as a whole continues
to pay in the guise of Airbus.

Paul

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
It looks like the competition is good for the airlines and the travelling
public, but very risky business for manufacturers.

Mmm. Competition. How much competition is there if Airbus
make the only real choice in the 500+ seat market and Boeing
make the only real choice in the 200-300 seat market? :-)

Paul

Paul,

and Boeing
make the only real choice in the 200-300 seat market


that's a big if, if ever I saw one.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Kevin Brooks wrote:

And what happened to the plans to use the 767 as replacement for the
KC-135?

Still in limbo for the USAF. Italy and Japan have purchased 767 tanker
mods, though.

Anithing tp do with teh fact that Italian Avionavali will make the
transformation? Looks like a political choice.

--
Fritz

Kevin Brooks wrote:

7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones
forever)

No ?

No. Aircraft have definite service lives.

Some helicopters don't.

--
Fritz

Pooh Bear wrote:

wrote:

One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser
if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on
the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the
hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris.

BA actually made good money on Concorde

It looks to me that BA lose money twice:

1) the Concorde was never profitable
2) the Concorde was a mis-opportunity to develop an European 747

--
Fritz

"Fritz" wrote in message
...
Pooh Bear wrote:

wrote:

One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser
if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on
the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the
hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris.

BA actually made good money on Concorde

It looks to me that BA lose money twice:

1) the Concorde was never profitable

BA made money from Concorde since they were practically
given the aircraft free, the taxpayer footed the development bill.

2) the Concorde was a mis-opportunity to develop an European 747

Perhaps but prior to the 1970's oil price hike most people thought
supersonic was the way to go, including Boeing who had
their own SST project.

Keith