Skilifts.org / SORT Forum

The plane the A-380 nose section is coming out of is a A-300 Super Transporter made by Airbus.

The 7E7 will fly slightly faster than the average jet and will be far more coftorable. Look on Boeing's website for conceptional drawings of both interior and exterior.

I like Boeing better than Airbus and hope this airplane will put Boeing back on top again.

Long Live the 727

The 727's are the best boeings. Sad most have been phased out here :(

I love those 3 jet plane though they are noisy toward the rear.

Could not agree with you more.

Although over 1,800 were built only 10-20 are still used for passengers in the US

727

Donald Trump flies a 727 as his private jet. I've never liked rear-mounted-jet planes, except for CRJ's. Really loud in the back (which is where wer always seem to sit on them). Although trijets are cool, like the Lockheed L-1011 and the DC-10/MD-11.

Greyhound Air owned a fleet of 727's during thier brief existence. I like the MD-11 cause the jet goes through the rudder. it looks so precarious

The only Delta 727 in the new colors that I've come across: from airliners.net

Not a sight you see too often anymore: also from airliners.net

Is it not called a 787? I hear if it goes over well then they will do the same to the 737s.

When it was first announced it was the 7E7 but they scratched that in favor of 787 more recently.

The first 787 is starting to take shape, they should have it ready for the first flight in August of this year

How did I miss this thread? The 787 is due to rollout of the Everett plant on July 8th.

SilverFir, on Nov 12 2003, 08:49 PM, said:

Speed as nothing to do with what the airline industry is looking for. Low cost operations buy lowering MTX and fuel cost is far more important. Airbus fly smoother??? Both Boeing and Airbus fly in the same sky, and handle turbulence the same way.

edmontonguy, on Nov 12 2003, 05:31 PM, said:

This is a huge evolutionary step in commercial aircraft design. A large part of the aircrafts airframe has been built using composite material instead of the traditional aluminum. This means much less weight, longer service life, and overall less fuel burn. Less fuel and less weight are big in the airline world! The powerplants are a new lean burn design as well. These are the basic selling points, but there is a long list of advancements. To show how important this new aircraft is to the airlines, there are over 500 orders already placed for an aircraft that hasn't even flown yet!

Kicking Horse, on Nov 12 2003, 05:22 PM, said:

You wont have a choice if your going to fly with in the next 20 or 30 years. This type of aircraft design is going to change how aircraft are built.
This post has been edited by Limelight: 17 May 2007 - 08:42 AM

KZ, on Nov 12 2003, 09:25 PM, said:

The 777 did not replace the 747. The 777 was built to fill the market demand for a long haul aircraft to fit between the capacity of the 747 and the smaller 767. The 747-800 will replace the current 747-400.

The main problem with the concorde was the not the sonic boom, it was the massive fuel burn and engine noise from the old turbojet engine design as compared to the quite, lean burn high bypass engines of today. The new stage III noise reqirements would ban the concorde from most airports today. British Airlines and Air France could not afford to keep them in operation. They were just not cost effective.

SkiBachelor, on Nov 12 2003, 09:33 PM, said:

You can't stop the sonic boom. It would be like trying to build a ship that didn't produce any waves. All that air has to get out of the way. Spoliers are used to reduce lift, add drag and assist the ailerons during low speed turns (roll) by adding control surface. So really, adding any type of spoiler to the airframe or wing would only slow the aircraft, not prevent supersonic shockwaves.

Will a newer version of the Concord fly? Last major pice to the 787 just arrived and the plane will be assimbled in Evrette.

Snoqualmie guy, on May 17 2007, 01:02 PM, said:

Someday. Engine technology needs to improvement first. We need a powerplant that can produce a huge amount of thrust, at high altitude (60,000 and above) but with a very low fuel burn in order for the idea of supersonic transport to be economical again.

What do you think is better, Boeing or Airbus? I've heard from pilots that Boeings are the pilots airplane.

Oh God the A vs B debate. They both produce outstanding aircraft and are equal in so many was its hard to say which is better. But to be fair to myself, I'm a Seattle man, so Boeing all the way! IMO, Boeing is on the right track with the 787 concept. They will soon start work on a 737 replacement using much of the same technology used on the 787. I think this will give them a competitve edge over Airbus of the next few years, as the market is already starting to show.

I think the A380 was just a bad idea. Great airplane, built by a great company, but very big and very expensive. Most airports can't handle such a large aircraft without major runway, taxiway and terminal/gate reconstruction. Why should a local goverment spend millions to update their airport to accommodate only one aircraft type? The A380 cost continue to rise due to production delay after delay, and the break even point for Airbus is getting higher and higher as well. If the A380 program doesn't receive a ton more orders, and if they continue to delay the delivery dates, it could be devastating to the company.

Could the A380 send Airbus down the drain? Is the passenger market just being served by Boeing and Airbus?

Snoqualmie guy, on May 18 2007, 10:18 AM, said:

Airbus wouldnt disapear, they are supported financially by european countries.
This post has been edited by SVmech17: 18 May 2007 - 09:38 AM