Boeing 797.

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />How would you expect the military to use BWB tech? For AWACS and refueling? I don't see it making a good military cargo aircraft. Those need loading ramps and the ability to offload in mid-air. <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />While sales of the A380 might be lousy, the same can't be said about the 787. A recent <i>Air & Space</i> article had the airlines already ordering 677 copies at $180,000,000 each. That comes to roughly $121 <font color="yellow">billion</font>that the airlines collectively owe Boeing. In fact, that article also had some airlines considering canceling A380 orders so they can order more 787s.<br /><br />Can you say "Money"? <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>

 

[jschaef5]

"How would you expect the military to use BWB tech? For AWACS and refueling? I don't see it making a good military cargo aircraft. Those need loading ramps and the ability to offload in mid-air."<br /><br />Refueling would be a great use. And why can't you offload like a C-5 does with the nose, and who says you can't build a ramp into the bottom? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Because most military cargo planes are built close to the ground to minimize the amount of ground support that is required. Also, the C-5 is one major exception in that most military cargo planes have minimal runway requirements. Most can land on dirt, snow, ice -- and in very little room. Even the AN-225, the world's biggest plane, was shown taxing across soft mud -- with the Buran on its back. <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>

 

[rsa_4]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>While sales of the A380 might be lousy, the same can't be said about the 787.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />True the 787 is stellar, but the 748i sales suck, as I pointed out <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> We were talking about VLA's, not medium wide-bodies like the 787.

 

[rsa_4]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />While the 7E7 was heavily marketed, it was never intended to be the official name, simply to draw attention to the efficient nature of the plane. The official press release from Boeing's site says:<br /><font color="yellow"><br />SEATTLE, Jan. 28, 2005 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today gave Boeing Commercial Airplanes' newest airplane -- the 7E7 Dreamliner -- <b>an official model designation number of 787</b>. "We used 7E7 to highlight the airplane's dramatic efficiency advantages," said Alan Mulally, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. "All those advantages and more continue with this official model designation for the airplane ."<br /><br />Since the naming of the initial 707, all Boeing commercial jets have been named in succession based on the 7-7 formula: 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767 and 777 up to the latest Boeing commercial jet transport, the 787.<br /><br /><b>Tradition at Boeing has been that airplanes in development are given a letter designation and at time of launch are given a number. </b>The 757 started life as the 7N7, for instance. The 767 was the 7X7 and the 777 was the 767-X.<br /></font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[willpittenger]

I was talking about the speculation -- not what Boeing was or was not discussing internally. Still, I figure the temptation was there in greater quantities than with prior types. <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]

I still can't find your 748i. Sounds more like a BMW name than Boeing. Could you be talking about the Boeing 747-8? <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]

748 is indeed the 747-8. It is the IATA three-letter code for it in the same way that 744 is a 747-400 series and 763 is a 767-300 series. <br /><br />And going back earlier in the thread, here is an article from Boeing's website on their aircraft designations.<br />http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2004/february/i_history.html<br />(notice it's a few years old as it finishes off discussing the 7E7... LOL )

 

[rsa_4]

Sorry, I've worked with this stuff too much and use the acronyms - my bad, I should have been clearer. As Davf points out, it is the 747-8i. The "i" is for "Intercontinental" which is the passenger version. The freighter - which is selling pretty well - is known as the 748F.<br /><br />Another example is the A380-800. Often referred to as the A388, and the same with many other aircraft.