8 engines in one plane? Why not 50 engines? Or 100? Why is the 777 so special with 2 where 4 was considered the minimum for the roles it is performing? Why are there no 3 or 4 or 5 engined fighters? 8 engines means you couldn’t find an engine powerful enough to fit it with 4.

The more engines you have, the better is your tolerance against failure (a very common problem in the 50s). The B777 is only possible due to careful usage in civil industry, actually flying with restrictions.
The B-52 has a very large wing, it comes close to a flying wing (if one considers the weight proportions). The multiple engine layout is efficient. However, if suitable engines were available in 1950 Boeing would have used it. The B-52 was first considered to be a turbo-prop because jet engines did not have enough power vs. fuel consumption in the late 1940s. Imagine, the B-52 flew 10 years after the B-29 and represented a nearly 3-fold increase in weight. The Russians were hard pressed to keep this speed (when it comes to large jets), and from the end of the 50s the driving factor in US was civil aircraft production (when it comes to large jets).

The US is acting like a British upper class, with the rest of the world as the lower class. The US acts less like a policeman than a nazi. The world is a resource and the US will use it as it will, and it will back that up with force. People who hate cops are not all the same. Some just don’t respect the cops because the cops they have dealt with were dishonest. In that sense the US is just like a dirty cop. Won’t go down xyz street at night. Will only intervene in a problem if they have a vested interest. Always gets a cut of the action.
As I said… Nazis.

The objectives of the Nazi government (as far stated) were completely different and normally did not go back to reasonable objectives. It was one of the main aimes of the Wehrmacht to clear areas for “Siedler” and “Bauern”. I haven’t seen any American farmers moving to Iraq lately.

Actually more like above 1,500hp. The radial piston engined An-2 may never be replaced in operational service by the turboprop powered An-3 because the 1,000hp engine in the An-2 is simple and easy to maintain in the environment it is largely being used in (ie arctic regions).
My point was that most look at the Bear and think it actually uses piston engines. It uses Turboprops, which are a type of jet engine.

Depends on the used criterias of “efficient”. In an economy with different cost system (for example low labor cost as in China) a system may be efficient that is outdated in Europe. Nobody uses piston engines above 500hp any more in airplanes, at least not for new designs. The An-2 is a biplane, it can’t be used as benchmark.

But you suggest that it was only the Soviets that benefitted from German designs…

I don’t take the time to have dialectical discussions about this topic. Why should I, you won’t do it either, and would twist anything I say (like usual).

The Tu-116 was a 747 10 years before the real 747 was designed. No other civil airliner had the range the Tu-116 had. In a real market enconomy of course it would fail, but not because of performance, because of fashion. Propellers were old tech and assumed to be less efficient than the new sleek jets. The fact that the Tu-116s had jet engines turning those propellers and that it had the simplicity of a jet with the propulsion efficiency of propellers… ie the best of both worlds was largely ignored by the ignorant public. Unless you are flying supersonic the Bear is as good as it gets. Most civilian airliners are subsonic.

(heavy caughing)

GarryB, transport efficiency is the payload times the range divided by cost. It is strange nobody bought the Tu-116. Was it so expensive? In the 1960s many passengers still travelled by turbo-prop, they were in many occasions better than early jets.
But of course, the loser’s logic: if people don’t buy my products, people are stupid!

Lets face it, fitting 8 engines to one aircraft is a desperate measure that couldn’t be out of choice. If they had such superior engine technology why not just go for 4 or 6 engines… but the difference wasn’t that substantial at all.

Desperate, why? It was a natural thing taking the payload and the available engines. At that time Boeing used the best engine available. It actually became available just in time. Engine technology progressed quickly, compare YB-52 to B-52H in terms of payload-range. Please note that the B-52 was the heaviest aircraft in the 1950s and stayed that for a good time, especially when taking its speed and capability into account.

If the A400M achieves commercial success many folks will be astonished, Airbus included given that it’s military aircraft.

As for a new 737 replacement stopping A320s sales, given the rather large number orders + backlog for the healthily profitable A320 (including plenty of new customers), I would suggest Airbus would be able to focus on both the A350 and a A320NG as the A380 starts to generate profits; remember that they are expecting just a single new customer for the A380 each year over the next few years so the breakeven figure may well be acheived within 5 to 7 years (dependent on what discounts, if any, are given).

Right so. The A320/B737 replacement discussion is pointless at the moment, actually testified by both manufacturers. If someone is second on the market, he will not be doomed by that. Remember that Boeing offered a mid 60s design in the 90s against the all-new A320 and actually had quite a lot of sales.

Boeing has the upper hand right now, but it certainly shouldn’t think that it has regained the outright lead. As much as Airbus is in a little bit of trouble, Chicago shouldn’t just think they will just roll over and play dead.

In terms of cash-flow, sales and profit it doesn´t have. It is just expectations of an unflown aircraft. Not to say that it is a bad one, but just adapt your post to the facts and not the marketing department releases. You serve your credibility by that.

@Levsha
just to prevent any pointless (and endless) discussion about the topic of German or other DNA in Soviet designs: there is a high possibility that German (and British and American) design work was used, because Soviet technology was inferior at the end of WW2. But I would rather characterize it as a starter. If you take aerodynamic designs from the Project 183 by Focke-Wulf (which resembled the MiG-15 pretty well) from 1944, there is still a long way to go. So it is finally not valid to give all the credit to its original designers.
It’s like congratulating Boeing for the A380, because they “invented” the low-wing quad-engine aircraft. On the other hand, RR Trent 900 in the wing root would look rather clumsy, wouldn’t it? 😉

just as a practical list, the top reasons that prevent a bomber from becoming an airliner
– fuselage too small
– payload-range characteristic different (too much range with too small payload)
– structural design not sufficient (low life-time, low-cycle)
– military field performance (start with JATO, landing with parachute, sometimes long runways)
– systems (hydraulics, fuel, electrics) in military standards, hence not compatible to civil users
… to be continueed

Boeing converted the B-17 and the B-29 into civil airliners with new fuselages. But things become more complicated with size and speed. The bigger market for airliners justified the investment for th B707 (which was half a military project).
The reports I read indicated that the Tu-116 had a little comfort problem.

How many planes were derived from the B-52 design?

The Tu-95/-142 is the fastest propeller driven aircraft in the world and is not that much slower than comparable jet bombers.

Who cares if the B-52 can carry a heavier load of dumb bombs… if that were important sling 250 tons of bombs in the back of an AN-225.

Actually quite a lot: Both B707 and B747 profited from the experiences made with the Stratofortress. It was not used as platform, because the Americans had the C-135 available. It was capable of the missions needed: tanker, AEW, transporter, ELINT, etc.

From the pure performance point of view the B-52 reigns in most categories. However, the aircraft should not make each others job. The Soviets used the Bear as an efficient platform. Due to a lack of usable jet engine technology for longer range aircraft, they sticked to props longer. Actually the B-52 was planned as a turbo-prop first, too, looking pretty similar to the Bear. Butr than the J-57 became available.

Can you really develop an efficient jet airliner from a strategic jet bomber design??

Of course you can, but I won’t be a good design. Means, your competitor will launch a better design. Military aircraft have completely different design philosophies hwne it comes to structure, system design, safety margin and crew comfort. Of course one can change that, but it is normally more efficient to use your experiences and build something new. The B707 is a perfect example. In SU the “competitor” was usually lacking.

Halve the number of engines and exactly how many important differences are there between the two? Did they have to be that different to perform the way they do?

For somebody without plan of aircraft design that is a proper view, but be sure that the issue is more complex, much more complex.

I don’t believe the airframe was regarded as very successful as an AEW either. All those propeller blades spinning around must have created some interference.

The Tu-126 was not a successful design. Only 8 were built. Many things seemed to be not working as planned. The factb that the Bear/Tu-116 was the only usable platform says something about the drivers of Soviet aircraft industry.

The B-52 was the first bomber able to really penetrate the Russian airspace from northern direction after the B-36. I think it caused some headaches, because the Northern line is so long and the interceptors mostly had poor range. After all, it was the primary deterrence for more than 10 years and the Soviet did not retire their air defence during that time.

there are people (including me) on here that are actually engineers involved in the design and POSSIBLE redesign of the a350, and its nice to see the levels of confidence shown by some of you armchair experts.

There are many new challenges involved with the technology we are using for the wing and there are more than a few of us that wonder just how Boeing are coming along in that department………..suffice to say that we have heard rumours of a metal wing for that project……no bad thing.

The airlines will wait if it is the aircraft they want.

I did not join the A350 but was on the A380 team for a while. And that was an eye-opener. Especially it let’s me think about the difference of public view and real thing. Hence it sometimes becomes pointless to discuss the press releases, which reflect sometimes a bare 10% of the truth (for both manufacturers).
The Boeing aircraft have some design principles that are different than Airbus aircraft. Taking the load calculations of Airbus, they could not build an 747 wing with the same weight.

My boss is involved in strutural testing and I once asked him: “Would you like your job at Boeing for the B787?” Reply: “For no money in the world …”

i think Airbus should concede the 787 market…and start work on a A320 successor, and keep working on the A340-500/600 models and bigger heavier A380’s

The market is so big that even an investment of several billions is worth it. The often announced A320/B737 successor is not due for arrival before 2012-15, even than it will not outclass its predeccessor. Here the same applies: Being second on the market is only a disadvantage if you deliver a worse product. Potentially the second always has the advantage of knowing the competitor’s product.