| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Boeing Planning To Kick Airbus's Butt Again |
| 2006-04-25 |
| 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 747Â’s 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 AirbusÂ’s $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 A380Â’s 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. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #17 where the f are the windows? don't tell me special monitors so you can see outside. (that idea was tried and quickly nixed after that DC-10 lost an engine, literally, on take-off from Detroit (Chicago?), back in the 70s. would you really wanna see everything?) |
| Posted by: rafael 2006-04-25 23:43 |
| #16 |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-04-25 23:22 |
| #15 Yeah! Fly American. |
| Posted by: Glavick Angease1706 2006-04-25 22:03 |
| #14 I suspect that it would take Boeing at leat 6 years to first flight. But only one press release to put a lot of Airbus orders on ice. Expecially when fuel efficiency becomes paramount. FUD |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-04-25 17:48 |
| #13 JFM: If I were older, younger or infirm that might be a problem. Also, flying more than a couple of hours would suck. But for, say, half price, I'll stand thanks. These aren't stunt planes after all. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2006-04-25 17:34 |
| #12 One of the problems with this form of airframe is designing the pasenger cabin and airframe to withstand the pressurization system and keep the weight down. They have been talking about these things for years and I suspect that it would take Boeing at leat 6 years to first flight. |
| Posted by: Glaque Uletch6961 2006-04-25 17:05 |
| #11 If the price were right, I'd fly standing. No you wouldn't. Unlike metros planes bank, climb and dive. At times at quite high angles when relief or weather leave no alternative. And at times they meet turbulences. Also a lot of unpleasant things including plane disentegrating in flight can happen when the payload is not centered. |
| Posted by: JFM 2006-04-25 16:53 |
| #10 Airline liability is strictly limited by international treaty. Otherwise they'd all be out of business by now. So don't worry about billion dollar lawsuits. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2006-04-25 16:43 |
| #9 Stock up on the air sickness bags. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-04-25 16:34 |
| #8 Don't forget the RAM coating. It bypasses the Achilles heel of the A380, namely less fuel efficiency than the 787 in a high fuel cost world. Following the B-2 experience, fuel efficiency inded be very good, but like AP said, one crash can be an airline/airframe manufacturer bankrupting experience. In addition, the outboard passengers are gonna experience Gs during banking and turbulence. Stock up on the airbags. P.S. bomb load of the B-797 over 300 tons? |
| Posted by: ed 2006-04-25 16:33 |
| #7 One of the key metrics in the flying biz is $$ earned per |
| Posted by: N guard 2006-04-25 16:27 |
| #6 Here is a preliminary schematic of the passenger cabin. |
| Posted by: Matt 2006-04-25 15:47 |
| #5 Crash one of those 1000 passenger units for any reason and you have a $billion+ lawsuit. I like the innovation of Boeing but I think that these mega-aircrafts are a concept going in the wrong direction. I like to see more flexibility in the nodes with medium sized planes, like the 747 size. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-04-25 15:39 |
| #4 Hmm I coulda sworn the 747 replacement isn't coming out till yellowstone 3 and yellowstone 1 (the 737 replacement) was next on their list. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2006-04-25 15:20 |
| #3 With that kind of capacity combined with standing passengers, I see no reason not to have enough space for a very comfortable area set aside for Ummm... "club" members. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2006-04-25 15:13 |
| #2 If the price were right, I'd fly standing. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2006-04-25 14:45 |
| #1 Apropos the earlier article, I expect the airlines to load it down with the passengers all standing up and holding onto those little handholds they have in busses and subways. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-04-25 14:43 |