What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.179 Comments
- dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+447A7, its hexadecimal... duh.
- konkushn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+46799.0.1 Build 4578 Beta
- panique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Boeing's public position on "Monster Jets" (and yes, the A380 is filed in the same general vicinity of my brain as Monster Trucks) is that flying more people longer distances is the wrong paradigm. Boeing contends that flying shorter distances with smaller jets is the correct paradigm primarily due to economics, and will ultimately win out. I think they're correct, and Airbus should really be taking note now that JetBlue has chosen to purchase a lot of Embraer's (a 125-seat jet with about a 2000 nautical mile range) for their shorter legs.
I agree. This is a load of malarkey. - BritOverseas, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19That is utter nonsense.
More people are flying long haul internationally than ever before and I dare you to try that in a little 737 or Airbus 200 series, especially in cattle, let alone those pokey little Business/First seats they have on these planes. Obviously, you have never flown more than 2-3 hours anywhere....
There is a HUGE market for these big planes, the A380 is one of the fastest selling supersized planes ever built, they have sold HUNDREDS of them so far...
Why do you think Boeing are so worried that they have missed the boat??? - sandrat44, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13This is nothing but rumors. Nice concept, but nothing on Boeing's site and Googling basically shows the same. Wiki acknowledges it's rumored.
- umdigger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Um isn't it actually the A380, I'll digg just because I'd like to see it happen.
- tazamore, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Unfortunately for Boeing most of their big customers are bankrupt and having trouble competing with regional carriers like Southwest. Demand for super jumbos is declining rapidly.
- dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I think it would be meant more for international use than domestic cross-continental, but that's just a guess.
- Evgeny, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13fake http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2736415/
no digg. - spatialized, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yeah, never gonna happen, especially with the problems the US Majors are having. The only reason the A380 has so many orders is that it appeals to airlines that are pretty much international long-haul, like Emirates or Singapore Airlines that need to jam as many folks in to make money. It does also appeal to package haulers like FedEx (who are getting the cargo version) as they deal primarily with containerized freight that works well in a configuration like that. The biggest problem these kind of jets cause is the massive infrastructure needed to handle them. All the major airports slated to receive A380s have all undergone significant runway and terminal upgrades to handle the beast. I mean, 1000 pax getting off at once is, well, ludicrous. We complain about 200 pax getting off a short-haul domestic run, but could you imagine the gridlock and wait times for 1000 folks to get off the plane and try to claim their baggage? Much less go through customs?
As for this Boeing vaporware, first, it will never happen, second, based on what I've found and read, it's a big fat fake. But you never know with those guys...they might play with something like that, then trash it, much like the Sonic Cruiser.
FWIW, Boeing is betting greatly on the Dreamliner, which looks very promising. Not to mention very nice lines.
"If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!" (Born and raised in Seattle...)
Tom
oh yeah, no digg - panique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Which is why the article is nothing but a load of crap.
First rule of business: enter a market that has no competition.
Second rule of business: when competition shows up, distinguish yourself from your competitors
Boeing can only lose by making a "me-too" Monster Plane - Oakes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I thought they were betting the farm on the Dreamliner? I liked that one better than this monstrosity. Small, cheap, fuel-efficient, and capable of landing in small airports more specific to your destination. This is the exact opposite of that vision.
- garycoker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Intel: 286, 386, 486, Pentium
Boeing: 777, 787, 797, Octium? - jonathankim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Boeing has actually had this airplane for a long time now. It was actually called the BWB concept and was acquired when they purchased McDonnell Douglas in the mid-90's. Last time I heard about any future projects coming out of Boeing was the 787 (which is in testing/production process) and some time in the far future the Sonic Cruiser. I this story is just crap.
- cillic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5As a frequent flyer, I don't look forward to the day when I have to climb over 8 people to get to the aisle to use the toilet...
- deut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Hmmm, that post has been mysteriously deleted.
- aposter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Huh? Blended wing and lifting bodies started in the 40's and 50's. They are very efficient when it comes to lift to weight ratios. They have more seating/cargo capacity for a given wingspan. Their biggest issue is that the airlines are afraid that people won't want to fly on them because they don't look like what people expect an airplane to look like. The other is that they can take wider runways to allow the carriages to be further apart.
- lilrabbit129, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"More people are flying long haul internationally than ever before and I dare you to try that in a little 737 or Airbus 200 series, especially in cattle, let alone those pokey little Business/First seats they have on these planes. Obviously, you have never flown more than 2-3 hours anywhere...."
I've flown tran-pacific flights in 737's... it's not fun but its doable. You seriously feel like cattle. If you're over 5'10" then don't bother trying to get comfortable in coach.. - tristar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is nothing but speculation.
While it is true that Boeing has been studying a BWB platform aircraft (basically an extension of the McDonnell Douglas studies pre-merger), there is no plans to actually produce the aircraft, and have been no indications that they are actually shopping this thing around to airlines.
Boeing is firmly against an A380-size competitor, as their philosophy is longer-range, smaller planes such as the 787 and to a lesser extent 777. Also, the next Boeing aircraft due for replacement will be the 737 series, most likely around 2012. The new 737 replacement will most likely become the 797 and use 787-derived technology.
A BWB aircraft at this point in time is not on the table, and likely will not happen anytime soon. - leep80, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I have a friend who works at Boeing as an Engineer and he said that the problem with Blended Wing Body is that people will be sitting at the wing tips and when the plane banks, those people will move a lot and feel it. In contrast when you sit in a current plane's tube body you only tilt a bit when the plane banks.
- Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This has been around for years and dubbed the "Boeing BWB".. last I heard, it was scrapped due to low interest. They only give out the 7x7 numbers to production models (dash 80 ring a bell?), not possible models.. If they were going to build one of these things they wouldn't call it that right off the bat..
Not to mention that they are coming out with the 787 and as a result the 747-8, which is a new 747 family plane using the tech from the 787 to increase efficiency and capacity even more than the 747-400. - zofo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3my god.. I read about this concept plane about 15 years ago in a popular mechanics
First of all, if you were to have a seat in the middle, you would be really REALLY in the middle of nowhere. In case of evacuation, etc anyone in that area shouldn't even bother to try to escape, they're dead already
Second off, for a much more banal reason.. the damn thing is too big for just about any commercial airport in the world. While they say it would fit where the A380 can.. I really really doubt that.. - ASoggyWaffle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"In 2012, when Jesus comes back in his spaceship to kill us all, it won't matter very much, now will it?"
amen! - Tupper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2no digg for fake
- CubicZirconia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The blended wing/body design theoretically is more efficient, but it has a lot going against it. Modern air transport is a system, it's not just about the aircraft; airports would have to be substantially modified to facilitate a design like the blended wing/body, and developing manufacturing techniques and the certification process would put this at least one decade away if it was even worth the effort.
The tube and wing design isn't just the preferred way because "that that way we've always done it", it's the result of a process of continuous refinement - all in all, as a compromise between engineering, aerodynamics, passenger and cargo handling and maintainability, it is the best configuration available as a part of a complex air transport system
If a route has the passenger and cargo volumes that will support a "super-jumbo" type aircraft, then they are my far the most efficient and practical way to service that route. One of the most important factors in the modern air transport system with the every increasing passenger and cargo volumes is aircraft movements at airports and traffic densities in the air traffic system. Aircraft like the A380 can move more passengers for less movements, burn less fuel (per passenger) doing so, and without cluttering up the airspace. They are safer, and more efficient!
A lot of the objections here regarding seem to be from US posters, rejecting the Airbus A380 and suggesting that any Boeing solution would be superior; I'm afraid that is pure and blatant jingoism.
Boeing has been at the forefront of commercial aviation far a large part of it's history, they make fine products, I would consider the 777 the finest large wide-body transport in airline service to date. But Airbus aircraft are also superb (I would consider the A320 family to be the current best of type in the narrow-body segment) and many other manufacturers, and for the segment they have selected with the A380, Airbus have now and will have the superior hand for the foreseeable future. - Donerkebab, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9This is bunk. Pure speculation here, move along people.
- ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeahhh... now we're going to get 1000 kills per crash.
- Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I've been hearing this for years.
They have major hurdles to overcome. - ReggieUW, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Umm, Southwest is a customer, they just bought 80 737's....
- jebivuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Airbus is like a lot of other European firms. They follow an ethos. Airbus is "we build plane" BMW is we build cars" They are very good at what they do. US companies have one unifying ethos. "How do we make money"
Boeing looks at the large body market and sees that the overriding control factor for profit is not how many people you can pack in an airframe. The CONTROLLING paradigm in the US is how many people can you push through an airport terminal. An A380 only works if everything at the departing and landing airport is on-time. If half your passengers are on transfer/connecting flights that are delayed you either leave them behind or wait for them and since you are not going to have spare flights laying around to catch the stragglers you have to wait or risk losing business to other carriers. Everyone knows that congestion at the terminals is going to get worse and the only way an A380 route is going to remain profitable is if they add on another long range jet as the last flight of the day to keep all those people that will miss flights in the loop. A perfect job for a Boeing 777-400ER.
American airports since 9-11 can not cope with having 1000 people show up at once for 1 flight. They have to schedule flights as a steady stream that is only as fast as the TSA and we all know how reliable that is. - ordord00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Southwest is a big Boeing customer. They just converted 79 options to orders for 737's last week. That's 4.5 billion in revenue for Boeing between 2007 - 2012
- hammerattack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This ship has been in the works for a while, but like the A380 it'll never be practicalfor passenger use. It's hard enough on an airline when a plane crashes with three hundred people on board (aka, 300 multi-million dollar lawsuits), but when one of these go down, it'll bankrupt whatever airline is running it. I predict this and the A380 will see spectacular success hauling high priority cargo around the world, however.
- pinnette, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2JohnboiWaltune said "In 2012, when Jesus comes back in his spaceship to kill us all, it won't matter very much, now will it?"
Are you a Scientologist? - dbarbour, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I have a friend who works at Boeing as an Engineer and he said that the problem ..."
This is true. The closer you are to the axis of rotation, the smaller the change in altitude when banking. Those people sitting nearest the wingtips will experience significant changes in attitude and that will cause problems. The only solution I see it to mount the seats towards to outer edgs of the aircraft to some sort of hydraulically stabilized pivot that allows the seat to maintain a near vertical orientation independent of the aircraft's attitude. If I had the money and the resources, I'd be developing this right now. - Ryetronics, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Cptshamrock,
Here's a digg article I submitted about Southwest going international.
http://digg.com/links/Southwest_Airlines_Closer_to_Going_Abroad - RickySan65, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3nah.. thats where the swimming pool and hottubs will be..
- zeebo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6The 787 is meant to replace some of the smaller planes in service today. The 797 is meant to replace the 747 and compete against the new big airbus. It uses the same engines as the 787, although it uses 3 instead of the 2 of the smaller plane.
- dbarbour, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As for fuel efficiency, did you miss the part about the blended wing design being more fuel efficient than the traditional tube with wings? The whole thing is generating lift. Why do you think the B2 can carry such a massive bombload? The blended wing design is the most efficient aircraft design to date. I can't wait for blended wing design to make it commercially. More efficient == cheaper flights!
- aposter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well, it depends on how you define more efficient. The blended wing designs can cary more people further for less fuel. That fits my definition of more efficient.
- witooo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2BritOverseas... without taking into account your comments on 737's makeing only short flights... what you say may be true but just as true is that Boeing has opted for short range flights and airbus for long range. This is not to say that transatlantic flights will be made in light aircraft's. Boeing will take fewer passengers to many different places in smaller crafts (which will still be Medium or Heavy size), where as Airbus will take more passengers (in even bigger crafts) to one place from which they will take another flight (on a smaller aircraft) to their final destiny.
- colinnwn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@tazamore
Southwest is no longer a regional carrier. It has a coast to coast route network, and carries more domestic passengers than any other airline.
@cptshamrock
In Southwest's quarterly earnings release last week, the CEO announced Southwest has an agreement with ATA Airlines to sell their international itineraries by 2009. He also said he expects Southwest to fly internationally in the future, but is not presently working on it.
@BritOverseas
Aloha flies the 737 from Oakland CA to Maui and Honolulu. That's 8 hrs goin and 6 hrs returning I think. Also, the 787 has 291 firm orders and 88 intended orders. Now that's what you call hundreds! - BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"But Airbus aircraft are also superb (I would consider the A320 family to be the current best of type in the narrow-body segment) and many other manufacturers, and for the segment they have selected with the A380, Airbus have now and will have the superior hand for the foreseeable future."
Since the A380 hasn't flown a single commercial passenger yet and we have yet to see the maintenance and reliability records of the aircraft, isn't it a little too soon to make the above statement?
And as an American, I agree there is a little bit too much flag-waving going on in this thread.
(I fly twice a week and have nothing bad to say about Airbus) - dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 I can't see it being made by any aircraft company.
Aircraft of that type are supposed to be horrible for passengers, if you're in the middle you're OK but if your seat is on the outer edge you'll feel high g-forces during turns. Not good if you're 70 years old and had a stroke recently. - jpwhitmore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Who would want to ride in one more then once? It looks really cool and may provide a smooth ride but most people would have no view of the outside. The times I have flown really long distances and didn't have a window to look out of were pure hell. I'm sure this would be much worse if you were anywhere near the center.
- cptshamrock, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I read something recently that southwest is looking to expand to international flight.
- tsupersonic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Man I though 747's were big enough, but appearently Boeing and Airbus just want to make airplanes that carry more and more passengers.
Hopefully the next "big thing" will be more efficient. I can't wait for flying cars... - jdhouse4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Some in the aerospace business think that Boeing's 787 Dreamliner design is the apex of efficience for traditional airliner design. The 787 is a huge jump over even a 777. But scaling up the 787 design to that of an A380 will not carry those efficiencies over. For one, there's the issue of parasite drag and form drag vs. area drag. An A380 might a lower area (cross-sectional area) drag than a blended wing design. But a blended wing design should win out on a lower parasite and form drag over the A380.
If Boeing did come out with a blended wing design, something it thought hard about doing before settling on the Sonic Cruiser and then the 787, it would mark Boeing again as an innovator in the airline business. The real question is whether the airlines would buy or not? I don't know.
I personally think this whole 797 story is a bunch of rat snot. - 12340987, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1there are way more 777s flying around, why don't they make flying wings of those? I know there are load balancing issues, but that's what engineers are for, and you always hear of razor thin margins, and fighting for 1% in efficiency gains, it just seems more practical. airline companies should have made their own planes using that $15 billion bailout that ended up doing nothing.
- skyman375, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This was a cover story on PopSci a couple of years ago. As far as I remember, it was a design study back then. It doesn't look like this article has really added anything new.
- audiohacked, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The blended wing design has been scrapped for a few years now. Along with Boeing's Supersonic Jet. Old news! For the blended wing design all the airports around the world would need major remodeling to accommodate the new plane.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 178 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is