61–70 of 122 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The A380 was a bet on hub-and-spoke (Emirates is the biggest A380 operator, with all flights going to/from Dubai), while the B787 was a bet on point-to-point.
Yup, Wendover Productions (massive aeroplane nerd) did a fanatastic video about this, really recommend it if anyone's interested in the economics of airlines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSxSgbNQi-g
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember that Boeing's original plan was to use the 747 as a freighter. Passengers would fly on supersonic jets like their prototype 2707 SST. This is why the 747's cockpit is on top, it provided a continuous open tube for cargo underneath. http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-content/uploads/2015/...
> Remember that Boeing's original plan was to use the 747 as a freighter. You have to wonder actually if that is even true (I've heard it as well obviously). Reason being Boeing may have been thinking SST wouldn't work or be practical (after all it wasn't) but it was easier to sell a 747 based on saying it could be used as a freighter primarily. If they had said it was just another long range high capacity plane the…
I used to fly these every two weeks, KL691 and KL692 the flights between Schiphol, Netherhands and Toronto, Canada. Then at some point they moved to 777's, and even though it was a nice plane and far more modern the 747 almost never had a turbulent ride whereas the 777 trips were far less comfortable, especially the red-eye return flight rarely was smooth enough that I could get some sleep. Retiring the 747 was one (…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The A380 isn't that popular either. The A380 only makes sense for really popular routes with a guaranteed high passenger count, whereas the 787 is more flexible because it has a similar range and takes less passengers but is almost as efficient per passenger-mile. And in 2016 there were fears Airbus might even cancel the A380 entirely: https://qz.com/782361/airbus-a380-airlines-are-abandoning-th...
> The A380 isn't that popular either. The A380 only makes sense for really popular routes with a guaranteed high passenger count, whereas the 787 is more flexible because it has a similar range and takes less passengers but is almost as efficient per passenger-mile. Also with airports where you're slot limited, and hence operating a single aircraft is easier.
They use them on long routes with low frequency but lots of connections - singapore, Joburg, LAX.
A380 definitely works for hub and spokes though - emirates run about 10 a380 flights to the uk every day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember that Boeing's original plan was to use the 747 as a freighter. Passengers would fly on supersonic jets like their prototype 2707 SST. This is why the 747's cockpit is on top, it provided a continuous open tube for cargo underneath. http://www.nycaviation.com/newspage/wp-content/uploads/2015/...
> Remember that Boeing's original plan was to use the 747 as a freighter. You have to wonder actually if that is even true (I've heard it as well obviously). Reason being Boeing may have been thinking SST wouldn't work or be practical (after all it wasn't) but it was easier to sell a 747 based on saying it could be used as a freighter primarily. If they had said it was just another long range high capacity plane the…
Perhaps the 747 was a hedge (and it turned out to be a good one if so), but the design kind of implies otherwise IMO.
The 787 is a technical marvel, but it doesn't evoke the same feelings.
If you happen to be near Speyer in Germany you can visit the Technikmusem Speyer and see a 747 up close. https://speyer.technik-museum.de/en/boeing-747 If that's not reason enough to visit this museum: They've also got a Buran.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having more mass tends to smooth out the ride quite a bit. Being longer has both upsides and downsides as you can get a lot of torque, but you also resist that torque better.
The most relevant characteristic is the wing loading, I think, i.e. aircraft mass divided by wing area. For a given gust, acceleration is inversely proportional to wing loading. A380 > B747 > B777 (Though a B737 has the same wing loading as an A380!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading
Velocity and angle of attack also play a role.
If you happen to be near Speyer in Germany you can visit the Technikmusem Speyer and see a 747 up close. https://speyer.technik-museum.de/en/boeing-747 If that's not reason enough to visit this museum: They've also got a Buran.
Turns out they have the atmospheric aerodynamic test vehicle (OK-GLI / Buran Analog BST-02).
As for how, it has quite the interesting history. Bought by an Australian in 2000, displayed for the Olympics, owner went bankrupt. No buyers appeared. It next shows up being exhibited in Bahrain, before the Sinsheim Auto & Technik Museum buys it (finally moved in 2008).
The remaining Buran vehicle is still in Russian custody.
I used to fly these every two weeks, KL691 and KL692 the flights between Schiphol, Netherhands and Toronto, Canada. Then at some point they moved to 777's, and even though it was a nice plane and far more modern the 747 almost never had a turbulent ride whereas the 777 trips were far less comfortable, especially the red-eye return flight rarely was smooth enough that I could get some sleep. Retiring the 747 was one (…
Wow! How fast was the air flying? I.e., how close were you to supersonic airspeed?
