Boeing 797.

3488 · Sep 14, 2007

Boeing 797 to take on Airbus A380?? Article here. Boeing 797. Image here. Boeing. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

veritassemper · Sep 14, 2007

3488 Well I think it would be no bad thing to build the 797. It would be good to see this particular aircraft flying. I am interested in its design and it would be amazing to see the 2 competing. The Airbus 380 can carry much more than 555 passengers. That is the least number depending on the airline's requirements, but if many of the 'luxury' benefits are taken out, then I believe without checking that the 380 could seat around 800 passengers. v s <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

3488 · Sep 14, 2007

Hi veritassemper, How very true that is. It would be interesting to see how many seated passengers the A380 could take if all galleys, bars, first class removed & replaced by economy, etc. I think 800 passengers would be quite possible, maybe even 850. See this about Operation Solomon when an El Al Boeing 747 carried 1,088 passengers. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

3488 · Sep 14, 2007

Hi crazyeddie, I doubt that such a configuration would be considered, on Health & Safety grounds let alone anything else. You are correct, it would be a nightmarish flight to board & disembark. I cannot see budget airlines using the A380 or 797 however, as they are usually short haul & seasonal destinations. The A380 & 797 I think will be for only the scheduled carriers & routes. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

jschaef5 · Sep 14, 2007

I am highly doubtful that the next plane from Boeing (797) will be a BWB design. I think it would be more appropriate to name the first BWB the "808". Boeing and NASA just did their first flight test a few months ago of an 8.5% model (X-48B). http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/X-48B/Small/ED07-0192-06.jpg My own opinion is that Boeing will need to get funding from the military to develop this design into a full sized test vehicle for either cargo transport or refueler. Right now it would be a risky bet for Boeing to use their own cash to make a passenger plane out of this. But once the military jumps on the design (if this ever happens), everyone will see how great this design really is and it will be developed further by Boeing for little cost into a passenger plane. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

veritassemper · Sep 14, 2007

3488 That is astonishing. 1,088 passengers on a 747! Mind you under the circumstances anything would be likely to happen. I assume the Captain had the final say. The mind pure boggles at the thought. Those who were crammed in would be very relieved to get out. Desperate times demand desperate actions. v s <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

3488 · Sep 14, 2007

Yes veritassemper. Apparently they removed, everything, seats, food galleys etc, the only thing that remained was the partition behind the flightdeck. The floors, were covered in matresses & the passengers were shoehorned in. Some flights involved C130 Hercules (a bit slow, but did the job) & 747 Combi too. So the passengers, really were 'freight'. I think under the circumstances, a flight like that was better than the alternative. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

veritassemper · Sep 14, 2007

3488 I checked the Airbus site to find the maximum number of passengers it could take and the best I got was 555! Now I have followed the 380 since its inception and I am sure that they were looking at passenger numbers of 800+. So a little searching got me to this 'YouTube' video. It has a German commentary and just look at the number of passengers who were evacuated under emergency procedures. I now suspect that the airlines are happier to go with up to 555 passengers. But it can carry a greater number as per the video. Note: You have to click on the box at the top to get the video up and running. Perhaps a second click is required. http://www.gadling.com/2007/04/30/video-airbus-a380-test-evacuation/ v s <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

3488 · Sep 14, 2007

Thanks veritassemper. 873 people evacuated in only 77 seconds or 11.33 people per second on average::: 873 people seated. I would imagine that is all economy class seating arrangement (the video showed just that seating arrangement). I would expect that generally with the bars, first class, etc, than it will probably be as you say 555. Even so, that is still a hell of a lot of people travelling together on one aircraft. Lets hope that none crashes. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

willpittenger · Sep 14, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I think it would be more appropriate to name the first BWB the "808".<hr /></blockquote> The problem with that is that all previous Boeings had 7s in the name. Ex: B-29 (9 - 2 = 7). Ex: B-52 (5 + 2 = 7). Perhaps they will chose to go with 7A7. (The Dreamliner almost ended up being the 7E7 as it was known prior to launch.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

willpittenger · Sep 14, 2007

I see safety issues with both the A380 and BWB. In the case of the BWB, it will take longer to reach a door in a emergency evacuation. In the A380, they need ways to get from the upper deck all the way down to the ground. Also, the A380 can carry less cargo per passenger than a conventional single deck design. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

davf · Sep 15, 2007

The A380 does have ways to get from the upper deck all the way down to the ground...

jschaef5 · Sep 18, 2007

Who says you can't load and unload from the bottom? Or that the linear distance from an Interior seat is more than the linear distance in a normal plane today? I've been in small MD-80s and even in those things if anything happened, it would be a mess trying to get everyone out since the isles are so small. I think these safety issues that you are discussing are far less important than the performance increase from a BWB design... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

davf · Sep 18, 2007

I agree with you but then it's also not quite that easy. Unloading from the bottom would be a less attractive option in the case of a wheels-up landing... or in the case of a wing on fire / burning fuel pouring underneath. But then, I've flown on flights with people in the baggage compartment and standing in the aisles, so I probably can't be too high-and-mighty in regard to safety.

holmec · Sep 19, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You are correct, it would be a nightmarish flight to board & disembark. <hr /></blockquote> I tend to disagree. A lot of the embarking and disembarking of aircraft is due to the one or isle you have on the plane itself. Boarding a 747 while long was less of a nightmare than a 737, or MD-80. With a broader floor the 797 will have you should have four isles or more. So the flow of passengers should be consistent, as opposed to stop and go on today's aircraft. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

rocketwatcher2001 · Sep 19, 2007

Unloading from the bottom would be a less attractive option in the case of a wheels-up landing... or in the case of a wing on fire / burning fuel pouring underneath. One of the things I like about the 727, and DC-9/MD 80 series is the aft air-stairs. I know that most passenger operations in the modern era have plenty of ground support, but I like having the independence of launching without waiting for the GS folks, especially for night freight. I think the 757 is going to be tough to adapt to for that reason. Without ground support, we won't have any stairs! There are many times when we have to make unplanned repositions of the aircraft as fast as possible, and not having to get a ground team together keeps the 727/DC-9's fast and flexible. The 757 is going to be more like a DC-8 I fear, which doesn't do anything fast. But then, I've flown on flights with people in the baggage compartment and standing in the aisles, so I probably can't be too high-and-mighty in regard to safety. If we ever meet, I'll buy you a beer and you can tell me that story, it sounds pretty good. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

davf · Sep 19, 2007

Excellent point about the rear stairs. I've actually boarded a number of BAC1-11 flights via the rear stairs. I've only been up the 727 rear stairs during tours, though. I once helped a friend top off oil and then tow and park a 727 for the evening and it didn't strike me until you just said it: one person could do it all (except for the tug from the FBO) precisely for the reason you mention. As for the flight, it occured on a Tarom Antonov 24RV flight from Constanta, Romania to Istanbul, Turkey about 15 years ago. The 24RV also has a booster jet engine in the starboard nacelle used for take-off and climb... especially useful when they are overloaded like that. LOL It was a real treat watching all sorts of incandescent flashes streaming past my window from the exhaust and wondering exactly what parts of the engine they were melting from... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

willpittenger · Sep 19, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The 757 is going to be more like a DC-8 I fear, which doesn't do anything fast.<hr /></blockquote> 757? Did you mean the 787? The 757 is no longer in production. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

davf · Sep 19, 2007

While the 757 is out of production as a new aircraft, there is a thriving industry doing cargo conversions of ex-passenger 757s. Quite a few cargo operators that are currently flying 727s in the cargo role are making the move into these 757s.

rocketwatcher2001 · Sep 19, 2007

757? Did you mean the 787? The 757 is no longer in production. For the past few years the 727 has been the medium haul cargo workhorse, but it is about to be phased out over the next few years and replaced by the 757. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rsa_4 · Sep 19, 2007

The "797" referred to in the post is purely a third party flight of fancy. Currently, it seems that: 1) The "797" will be the name used for Boeing's next project, which will serve what they call the Y1 market. The study for this aircraft is the 737RS (737 Replacement Study) 2) The BWB is far from ready for primetime. One of the key problems with a passenger BWB is that passengers sit far from the centerline, resulting in motion sickness when the aircraft banks 3) Given the limited sales of the A380, which seems destined to never recover development costs, and the even more dismal sales of the passenger 748i, the short-term outlook for VLAs is very unattractive

rsa_4 · Sep 19, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The Dreamliner almost ended up being the 7E7 as it was known prior to launch<hr /></blockquote> Not quite. The "7E7" was simply the codename prior to commercial launch, similarly to the A380 having been known as the "A3XX" Boeing often uses such a development "codename". If I recall correctly, the 777 was known as the 7N7 during development. At one stage, a 727 profan replacement was proposed. During development, it was known as the 7J7.

jschaef5 · Sep 19, 2007

"2) The BWB is far from ready for primetime. One of the key problems with a passenger BWB is that passengers sit far from the centerline, resulting in motion sickness when the aircraft banks " I do not believe this is even a remote issue. Airplanes do not need to bank very much at all in flight. "3) Given the limited sales of the A380, which seems destined to never recover development costs, and the even more dismal sales of the passenger 748i, the short-term outlook for VLAs is very unattractive" For commercial use. If the military jumps on board it will cover most of the development cost and would take less development later to covert to a commercial equivalent. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rsa_4 · Sep 20, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> do not believe this is even a remote issue. Airplanes do not need to bank very much at all in flight. <hr /></blockquote> Think about it: a 777 has a 200' wingspan. When doing a 20 degree bank, one wing drops 30 feet while the other rises 30 feet. All in about a second and a half. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If the military jumps on board it will cover most of the development cost and would take less development later to covert to a commercial equivalent.<hr /></blockquote> While I'm all for applying military technology to commercial aircraft, it's unlikely to be that easy. Airbus and Boeing have a running spat at the WTO over "subsidies". Any attempt by Boeing to get the jump on development costs will result in a trade war faster than you can say "import duties" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> However, even with government assistance, it'll be pricey. Airbus paid $3.5bn just to update the A340 when developing the A340-500 and 600 - Nothing compared to the $12-15bn that the 787 or A350 is costing, but still, you need to sell a lot of planes to recover $3.5bn in development costs. Since the BWB has a load of new issues, expect it to be a lot pricier to develop. The market forecast for VLAs is about 900 over 20 years. That includes cargo aircraft. To date, about 160 A380s and about 90 748s (I and F versions) have been sold. In the near-term the closest we'll have to a new VLA will be the 777 replacement, Boeing's Y3 market study, which is targeted for around 2018 to 2020 market entry.

willpittenger · Sep 20, 2007

Sorry, but I did see a discussion which showed the 7E7 name was rather popular. The Boeing ads had been calling the 7E7 the airlines' "Chief Efficiency Officer" for months. It seems the 7E7 name almost stuck. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

Boeing 797.

3488

Guest

veritassemper

Guest

3488

Guest

3488

Guest

jschaef5

Guest

veritassemper

Guest

3488

Guest

veritassemper

Guest

3488

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

davf

Guest

jschaef5

Guest

davf

Guest

holmec

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

davf

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

davf

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

rsa_4

Guest

rsa_4

Guest

jschaef5

Guest

rsa_4

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page