|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 15, 2011 3:35:12 GMT -5
there's nothing wrong with short and stubby. It's very difficult to shrink an airplane. For commonality reasons you usually want to use as many of the same parts as possible. But the wing is too big, the structure is too strong (and thus too heavy), and the airplane is just not as efficient as the base model. Stretching an airplane is usually much easier and more profitable.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Feb 15, 2011 13:47:09 GMT -5
there's nothing wrong with short and stubby. It's very difficult to shrink an airplane. For commonality reasons you usually want to use as many of the same parts as possible. But the wing is too big, the structure is too strong (and thus too heavy), and the airplane is just not as efficient as the base model. Stretching an airplane is usually much easier and more profitable. Yeah - but the 747SP was an interesting exercise. I know its per passenger efficiency wasn't that great (for the reasons you cite), but it did establish benchmarks for performance and range. I always thought that it looked rather weird, but in an endearing way.
|
|
|
Post by bunnywailer on Feb 15, 2011 19:27:17 GMT -5
Also - the McDonnell-Douglas products still live on. The current 717 is just a next-generation MD-90 and what was supposed to be named the MD-95. I travelled on 717s about three times on inter-island flights on Hawaiian Airlines. The 717 has been out of production for several years now. There wasn't much demand for it anymore, alot of the regional routes are using Canadair RJ fleets.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 15, 2011 20:39:02 GMT -5
The 717 has been out of production for several years now. There wasn't much demand for it anymore, alot of the regional routes are using Canadair RJ fleets. In fact, it's pretty much another example of how hard it is to shrink an airplane successfully. Trying to turn the DC-9/MD-80 into an RJ was maybe not the best choice. Most of the costs were sunk by the time of the merger, though, so the "717" did come to market. 156 of them were produced.
|
|
|
Post by paloalto on Feb 15, 2011 23:16:46 GMT -5
It is an interesting characteristic of human nature played out in boardrooms throughout America. A company will invest a lot of resources into a program, then somewhere along the way in development they realize there is not much market for the product or run into some insurmountable technical impasse that makes the product unprofitable.
Does the company pull the plug and cut their losses? No, they almost invariably continue to pour money into a program they know will be a money loser. It happens all the time at the company where I work.
|
|
ingoodstanding
Junior
"The constitution is not a living organism," Hon. A. Scalia
Posts: 399
|
Post by ingoodstanding on Feb 15, 2011 23:44:33 GMT -5
7/7/07: #7...from L to R ___ ah. Another amazing feature on the new 747... *Chevrons on the back end of the engines. VERY quiet (it makes this new plane). It will go around the world--somewhere--YET unlike 87 (frickah(s)), I'd imagine that the equator is out of the question.
|
|
ingoodstanding
Junior
"The constitution is not a living organism," Hon. A. Scalia
Posts: 399
|
Post by ingoodstanding on Feb 15, 2011 23:47:15 GMT -5
The 717 has been out of production for several years now. There wasn't much demand for it anymore, alot of the regional routes are using Canadair RJ fleets. I remember when HA used to fly those OLD DC-8s to the South Pacific. Classic, but what a tin can!
|
|
|
Post by pedro el leon on Feb 16, 2011 18:41:08 GMT -5
7/7/07: #7...from L to R ___ ah. Another amazing feature on the new 747... *Chevrons on the back end of the engines. VERY quiet (it makes this new plane). It will go around the world--somewhere--YET unlike 87 (frickah(s)), I'd imagine that the equator is out of the question. It's hard to make out the carriers but I can tell right of the bat the triple7 on the far left is Air France for sure, don't know whose are the 767 or 757 are, my best guess for the 747 is a BBJ, the 737 is definitely Alaska Airlines, the 727 is FedEx, and the Dash 80 I have no clue, but looks like a fresh paint job, probably for a small, poor airline or cargo carrier in South America or Africa. BTW, did anybody notice Boeing's Large Cargo Freighter in the background?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 16, 2011 19:22:30 GMT -5
It's hard to make out the carriers but I can tell right of the bat the triple7 on the far left is Air France for sure, don't know whose are the 767 or 757 are, my best guess for the 747 is a BBJ, the 737 is definitely Alaska Airlines, the 727 is FedEx, and the Dash 80 I have no clue, but looks like a fresh paint job, probably for a small, poor airline or cargo carrier in South America or Africa. BTW, did anybody notice Boeing's Large Cargo Freighter in the background? The 757 is Continental. I think the 767 is Air Canada, but I would have to find one of the poster-sized prints of this image to be sure. (They aren't too uncommon in my office, for reasons which should be obvious.)
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Feb 17, 2011 0:10:13 GMT -5
It's hard to make out the carriers but I can tell right of the bat the triple7 on the far left is Air France for sure, don't know whose are the 767 or 757 are, my best guess for the 747 is a BBJ, the 737 is definitely Alaska Airlines, the 727 is FedEx, and the Dash 80 I have no clue, but looks like a fresh paint job, probably for a small, poor airline or cargo carrier in South America or Africa. BTW, did anybody notice Boeing's Large Cargo Freighter in the background? The 757 is Continental. I think the 767 is Air Canada, but I would have to find one of the poster-sized prints of this image to be sure. (They aren't too uncommon in my office, for reasons which should be obvious.) You make it sound like you work for Boeing.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 17, 2011 10:15:04 GMT -5
Let's just say I have to be careful about what I post in a topic like this. But it's not a secret.
|
|
ingoodstanding
Junior
"The constitution is not a living organism," Hon. A. Scalia
Posts: 399
|
Post by ingoodstanding on Feb 17, 2011 12:19:48 GMT -5
Delta.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 17, 2011 13:37:01 GMT -5
The 767? Yeah, I think you are right.
|
|
|
Post by bunnywailer on Feb 17, 2011 13:48:22 GMT -5
I'm surprised by the relative lack of innovation in the commercial airliner development. Alot of engineering advances in powerplant, composite materials, fuel efficiency, etc. What about a little more innovation in the entry/egress. Like maybe have people board in a separate entry/exit area, then have the entire section lifted up onto the plane like they do with cargo freighters. Especially with the A380 and the 747-400 class airliners, jetways just don't cut it - too long and cumbersome to board. Same thing with overheard compartment storage. Lame. There should be more engineering on how to better distrbute weight in the passenger cabin and make airliners more CG efficient.
Weight to profit ratio always favors passengers, why is the entire bottom of the fueselage dedicated to container loading on widebody aircraft?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 17, 2011 16:52:20 GMT -5
There are a lot of non-obvious reasons why most airplanes are designed with the tube-and-wings configuration. Everybody thinks they have a better idea until the time comes to turn it into a certified, manufacturable, profitable product.
There are airplanes that have used the lower deck for other than cargo, but they have never been commercially successful at it. Currently Airbus offers some lower-deck galley options. But airlines like to have that cargo volume available.
|
|