When 747-400 came out in the first place (in 1989), the closest competitor was MD-11. 602 cm wide, 61,7 m long. Smaller than B777-200, and range 12 200 km.
747-400 has better range than MD-11, bigger capacity and lower costs per seat. But if an airline has requirements which MD-11 could not meet (and therefore the airline needed 747-400), this does not mean A340-300, B777-200ER or B777-300 might not meet those requirements.

The B747 was ordered for many reasons, I guess some orders would not be placed in current competitive environment. Look at the Asian carriers, most of them were state-owned in the 1990ies. Did those carriers actually fill the B747?

Look at the North American carriers, they operated numeruous B747 Classics, but only very few -400.

No post without a statement about the A380: The market of that aircraft seems increasingly questionable, however there is a market, and especially if Boeing discontinues B747-8I (which I consider a likely event in 2010), the A380 will generate positive money.
The big money is earned in the widebody sector.

They don’t mention what caused the fire warning?

Most of the time a false alert.

I think the Jaguar is a very good aircraft for the intended mission. It adds additional aircraft at acceptable costs. Rather have Jaguars than no aircraft at all. For today’s missions (precision bombing under peacetime conditions, long missions, time on station) it is probably the wrong aircraft.
What was the standard paylod of a Jaguar for the 1980ies? I often see it with 2 or 4 BLU755, two external tanks. Good aircraft for a short range strike mission. Was the Jaguar intended to go nuclear?

Where can be learned about supersonic configurations lift, I mean true facts, not useless theory..

http://cgi.ebay.com/Fighter-Performa…item439c543256

“True facts, nut useless theory” …
actually, when I read such lines I can imagine the ignorance of the writer, awaiting enlightment as instant package.
“Please make me smart, but don’t make me sweat.”
Why do you think people need years to study aircraft design?
The lack of “useless theory” is visible in every other posts on these fora. Some people understand a drag coefficient, some even heard of transonic drag peak, but then the white noise tends to kick in.
When you rate everything beyond a catchy graph as “useless theory”, you’ll never get behind it and always remain the laymen, maybe armed with a graph you can post but don’t really understand (like the one posted, which is nice but doesn’t help much when you understand the “useless theory” behind it).

But for the benefit of the others …

A textbook about aerodynamics is helpful, though one that suites the interested laymen is pretty hard to find. There are good books on combat aircraft design.

Two very good ones are:
Hünecke – Modern Combat Aircraft (a German book translated into English, sounds strange sometimes and uses the word “which” excessively)
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Combat-Aircraft-Design-Huenecke/dp/0870214268
A very detailed yet readable summary of key characteristics relevant for fighter aircraft. Special coverage of transonic aerodynamics, engine and intake design, limits of maneuverability, advanced features like vortex flow; and of cause the very bascis of lift and drag. The book is early 80ies but still good.

Whitford – Design for Air Combat
Pretty similar to the Hünecke book, but puts more focus on aerodynamics and different configurations. When it comes to aerodynamic differences of different configs, Whitford beats Hünecke. Whitford does have more actual graphs. I haven’t seen it on Amazon, but I think you can download it somewhere (I happen to have a PDF version).

There is another book from Whitford, called Fundamentals of Fighter Design (it appeared much later than “Design for Air Combat”). I have that bokk, too, but cannot recommend it. I regard Whitford as one a very good author, but apperently he tried to dump it down for the fighter enthusiasts out there. Mission failed, the book is readable for most people, but misses too many details.

A good book on aircraft design that especially covers supersonic fighters is “Raymer – Aircraft Design – A Conceptual Design”.

To the pax in cattle class, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a 1968 B737-100 or an A380 or 787. Maybe the noise level is a bit lower, but you still have some kid crying 2 rows ahead and the kids behind you pushing on the back of your seat.:mad: Still have crawl over others to get out of your window seat if you were lucky to get one, and then to queue up for the loo. When boarding at most big airports, you don’t even see the outside of the plane and have to guess what it is if you’re interested in knowing. I love flying!

Still, Eco class was and will be the backbone of airline business. Also: it is the most environmentally friendly.

With regards to the A380 media coverage, perhaps it is/was because the A380 LOOKS significantly more different than ‘traditional’ aircraft and something that the every-day person (who knows nothing about planes) could read/look at in a newspaper and grasp. The 787 on the other hand, looks a lot more traditional (767 with a body-kit) but is crammed full of technological advancements – something the every-day reader won’t necessarily appreciate. My guess.

With regards to the wing flex, all the pictures I’ve seen of the 7E7/787 from the start have shown a massive curvature to the wings. I don’t think it was an accident they looked so flexed the other day, I believe it is all in the design.

With regards to this whole AvB thing, the first thing that springs to mind for me is that most people have largely forgotten about the troubled EIS for the A380. Sure, the media love reporting on every single little technical fault the aircraft is having, because it is still a new airplane, but I don’t think it is still tarnished with (perhaps) disappointing initial production to EIS record. My point is, that what are problems now will be a thing of a past 5 years down the line.

Let’s hope the A350 has a seamless EIS, so that we can stop this trend of w*lly waving 😉

The A380 also has lots of advancements. In case of the B787 (and the A350) I think they jumped on the “advanced materials” band waggon a bit too quick, sometimes I see no specific reason to use CFRP.
Only a fraction of the quoted “20%” (which is actually versus a B767-300 on a long range mission, versus A330 or B777 the difference is single digit percentage, mission dependent of course) is due to savings in structural weight. The B787 (and the A350) have annoyingly long range and suffer from that (on shorter missions). The B787-8 could fly from London to NY, turn around over Manhatten and fly back, and still have reserves left.

I think one major difference was that the FRG aircraft often flew in adverse weather conditions and low level, just the intended mission. The GDR flew less often under such conditions, and generally rather tended to train ground controlled intercept (GCI). That puts a different light on attrition rates.
However, the attrition rates of the F-104 in the early years was largely due to inexperienced pilots and maintenance personal, causing a high number of technical issues. For the West German Luftwaffe the F-104G was a leap in complexity, and the drastic increase in numbers meant many pilots didn’t get the training they needed.

I consider (with my arm chair “experience”) the F-104 as one of the “pilot’s aircraft”, means it demands lots of training and is generally difficult to fly, but once mastered by the pilot it can do things. Compare that to modern 4th Gen fighters which favor the average pilot but do not give the excellent pilot additional degrees of freedom.

Still pilots can show their skills, today rather tactical than pure flying skills. But flying an F-16 to the limit is much easier than doing the same with an F-104 (AlfaKilo may correct, but I would guess that many pilots didn’t dare to really push the F-104 to its limits, too afraid of becoming another “attrition loss”).

The MD-11 was outdated, and finally killed by much better airframes, namely the A330/A340 and the B777. The competition was different for MDD, they could compete with Boeing on the basis that they were the only alternative – in the 1980ies. But with Airbus pulling out a well designed product (the A330/A340 series) and the B777 being far ahead technology-wise the aircraft was doomed.

The MD-11 is also a pretty strange aircraft. Its handling is “special”, looking at its hull-loss rate I am glad it primarily flies boxes.

The fade of the 3 remaining test B787 is not yet determined. I doubt airlines will take it, or only with huge discount. Factoring in the refurbishmen costs the business case for LN004-006 gets marginal.