SchorschOf course he’s heard of google…usually his ‘questions’ are a string of random numerical and statistical facts (rather than questions) obtained from there, and infact this post is pretty much the same.
A pointless topic as the 747, in all it’s forms was never a white elephant, they improved on a base aircraft, but even without that, 747-100s sucessfully ploughed the routes they were designed for for their whole design life…those being the transatlantic high volume markets.
The aircraftmdelivered lower seat/mile costs than anything else at that time and made air travel accessible to those for whom ticket prices had been too high previously.
I do not see why you could even ask how much the 747 was a white elephant, even with reference just to the -100 series.
Pointless pointless pointless!
Without the special features of that time, the B747 would have been a commercial disaster for Boeing, as the DC-10 was the smarter solution and offered equally low seat mile costs while being smaller.
A typical example how an aircraft created a market which actually wasn’t there before, and the success could not be anticipated. The same effect the A380 is relying on (while not as hard as the B747).
Most B747 were sold after 1985, so over 15 years after its introduction. So, let’s see what the sales figures for the A380 are after 2020.
SchorschIn 1970, 92 747-s were delivered. And then, in 1972, the number fell to 30, and in 1975 to 21. In spite of the availability of 747-200 by then.
747 orderbook at EIS stood at 1978. Then 20 in 1970, 7 in 1971, 18 in 1972, 29 in 1973, 27 in 1974.
Good example that making a straight line through orders and deliveries at any given moment will give you crap. There are so many things that can affect the attractiveness of an aircraft model that any predictions come with a big warning.
The B747 profited from the Asian markets to a good extent.
It is well possible that we see a time of very limited orders the next couple of years. It is actually quite possible, as some new models aren’t available yet (A350, B787, which are both sold out through 2015 at least, the B787 actually until 2018), and available models aren’t attractive enough (B777, A330, B767).
SchorschJudging by A380 sales, you’re quite right :diablo:
Let’s say it this way: airlines are more careful.
Remember: most of the foreign customers (and the B747 sold mostly outside USA) were partly or fully state-owned. Neither Lufthansa, BA or AF made profit those days.
If we look at the home market, the B747 was outsold by the DC10.
Schorsch2) It did not have the range of the 747-200. Well, that’s why the 747-200 is a further development of the existing model! Was the A320-100 a white-elephant because only a handfull where made? Of course not! It was the springboard to what became one of the most succesful and most important airliners in the world, same as the 747-100.
The A320-100 has minimum difference to the -200. I am not sure what exactly the reason for differentiation was, today Airbus uses the -2/-3/-8 to give indication on fuselage length or major version, while other things are done via weight variant.
Anyways, the B747-100 had some differences and range wasn’t that great. Still, it made 4500nm with normal payload. The later aircraft models benefited from better engines in the first place, allowing higher take-off weights and consequently more range.
The basic B747-100 was equipped with JT9D-3A(W) engines (“W” denotes water injection at take-off) and had 323t MTOW. The later models with basically same layout and CF6-50E2 engines made a jump to 364t MTOW, allowing an increased range of up to 6000nm.
3) The economics of the 747 where much better. However, one does need to be able to fill the plane. And there is a lot of plane indeed! Many operators where unable to fill the plane and ran at a loss. Is that the fault of the plane? Of course not! The airlines knew what they where getting themselves into! It´s not as though it was a surprise the 747 was 3 times larger then anything else around.
Boeing was lucky, as the DC-10 actually was the more reasonable aircraft. Boeing was lucky to be first on the market and that most airlines operated them for prestigious reasons and for the range. The success of the B747 in the years after its launch is only explainable with the overall optimism of that time, when all people expected moon bases in the mid 1980ies, people on the Mars before 2000 and supersonic air travel being the normal mode of travel in the late 1970ies.
Today, such an ambitious aircraft wouldn’t sell. The A380 is much more reasonable for its time than the B747 was for its time, still it is not hard to find critics of the A380, up to those who call the whole concept the biggest stupidity of all times.
Recommendation: download B747 Classic ACAP from Boeing. Google will help you with the link.
SchorschSimply the engines of the B747 reduced SFC by ~25%.
For its step change in size and transport capability, the B747-100 experienced surprisingly little problems.
The fully mature aircraft was the B747-200B though.
The motto became alive: Never buy the -100.
Since then, there never was again a -100 any more (see 57,67,77,78).
SchorschAn AoA limit limits your flight envelope & maneuverability.
An AoA-limiter maybe limits the fantasy of the fanboys, but for real life performance it is of no particular importance.
I don’t ever recall the OEW of the F-22 being said to be 28,000 lbs (same as the F-15A). I do recall 32,000 lbs.
The F-22 has slightly more dry/nonafterburning thrust than the F-15C has wet/afterburner thrust! And ~2/3 more wet/afterburner thrust but doesn’t weigh 2/3 more.
‘Traditional’ wing area is all but irrelavent these days as airframes are designed such that lift is provided by more than just the wings.
The big ‘fuel fraction’ advantage of the F-22 is not the amount of fuel it carries (which is >40% more than the F-15C) but the amount of fuel it burns while cruising at >Mach 1.5 vs the amount an F-15C would have to burn to do the same…
It has more fuel, more thrust and more weight. Great. That is why people use fuel fraction, TWR and wing loading for comparison.
When you look at the real numbers, there is no step change over the F-15A. OK, that is probably intended by the designers. While the fact that the USAF wanted to hide the empty weight for a couple of years is undisputed.
See these pages, which need an update I guess:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-specs.htm
gives 14.4t, which was for a time the “official” number. We now have 19.7t.
Despite some very remarkable performance figures one cannot escape the conclusion that the F-22 went a bit out of control weight-wise, and consequently, size-wise. The F-22 is heavier than a Bombadier CRJ-700!
The payload is roughly the same as that of the F-15A.
SchorschAs for unlimited AoA- that means that a pilot doesn’t have to concern himself with stalling his aircraft, so he can fly more aggressively.
With limited aircraft the pilot doesn’t need to worry, either.
An AoA in excess of 25° is not useful.
Knowledge of aerodynamics helps.
SchorschNot really, both are vulnerable to smart WVR AAMs, when the related lesson is, to keep a healthy distance or your EW-set has to beat that. Contrary to the main believe here modern fighters will avoid air-combat whenever possible.
I wanted to show that we don’t know what happens. If a stealthy aircraft engages a non-stealthy it is an easy task. But if stealthy aircraft engage each other, or stealthy aircraft are confronted by non-stealthy aircraft but cannot use their sensors to remain undetected, the whole thing can become a point-and-shoot exercise like in WW1.
But this shows the important trend. A active radar-guided AAM allows the shooter to stay out of harms way and still score hits.
I would rather have such a missile and only score hits for 50% off all firing, then a IRAAM which might score 90% of the time, but where the enemy will also score 50% of the time.
I think with availability of affordable medium weight active radar missiles, the BVR-game really started. The Sparrow always meant a single shot option before merge (I never figured out why an F-15 carries 4 Sparrow, if there is hardly enough time to fire two).
Like I said in another thread, the big thing about the Pheonix was neither its range but its technique of homing.
SchorschI would bet on the missile. As the advantages in electronics will mean that it will also be able to do a home on emitter attack. That is why towed decoys are becoming a trend.
If you look at the IPGW and concnetrate on the Iranian F-14As then you will see a clear trend towards the active AIM-54A.
I am not going to start discussing if all those kills listes are fully confirmed or not just taking numbers from kills that have been reported are are considered “confirmed” over at ACIG.
Gun: 1
AIM-9: 15
AIM-7: 7
AIM-54 : 17
Another fact is that Iranians became very careful about what engagements they go into and which they simply ignored. The sortie rate of the Iranians was pathetic the most time, while the Iraqis actually flew quite a lot of sorties.
As conclusion: the Iranians stayed out of harms way where possible, and best weapon for that is the AIM-54.
SchorschAs most analysts would tell you, to predict the future it is better to use fundamentals. Especially when the history is shaky.
With the most common semi active missiles it is a fight between a small disposable battery powered radar in the missile vs the powerfull ECM suit on future fighter aircraft. I know what I would put my money on. Passive infrared seekers is probably less vulnerable, but have their soft spots too.
If two stealthy aircraft engage with each other (without external support), I would guess the number of BVR kills drops to zero and the kills are necessarily all WVR (fun fact: under that conditions the F-22A can put two AIM-9 and the cannon into the fight, the same like a clean F-16A). The consequence is (and that is the biggest criticism of the F-35 I think), that a stealthy aircraft needs to maintain a performance level comparable to 4th or 4.5th generation aircraft.
That is also the basic point of Stevenson.
SchorschJust what did you smoke to come to that conclusion?
He is correct that the usage of B777-300ER constitutes an alternative strategy for an airline. If someone disbelieves in the necessity of the A380, the direct consequence would be to order more B777-300ER.
We see that only some A380 operators do operate the B777-300ER (notably Air France, Emirates, SAL), and that some have a large gap between the A380 and the next larger aircraft.
SchorschIt is useful because it shows the trend.
Drawing a line through two points doesn’t make a trend, only for weak minds (those who trade at Leham Brothers for example). Your figure could end up completely wrong. Funny exercise: draw a vertical line at say 1980 and predict a trend from there. You should get familiar with some statistical basics and have respect the factor Randomness.
SchorschNew orders would show it is a success, at the moment those are not coming in numbers os it is a failure.
I think currently the B787 suffers more net order cancellations than the A380. not that the B787 is a bad aircraft, but we will see no significant orders in 2009 for long rangers at all.
SchorschThe real competitor of A380-800 is B777-300ER.
How do the costs per seat compare?
A380-800 is 11% more efficient than B777-300ER (per seat).
Do you know what were the projections/promises and what the reality is today??
Current guess (from published performance figures and other sources) is 10-15klbs overweight in OEW compared to 2004 figures.
That compares to roughly 6% overweight (compare: A380 had 2, now ~1.3ish).
That will decay, maybe down to 4ish. Still quite a remarkable for an aircraft that put an emphasis on structural efficiency.
SchorschBoeing hardly left Airbus to it, they strongly marketed the 747-8, aiming it as a spoiler for the A380, having just said there was no market for large aircraft before developing a large aircraft.
The 747-8 has been a failure as a passenger aircraft, with Lufthansa still the only confirmed order, although Boeing succesfully got the scalp of Arik air (although not confirmed).
this significantly?
The B747-8I has a fuel burn penalty per seat, at least when both aircraft are operated with similar load factor (the B747-8I burns less fuel, of course, as it is a smaller aircraft).
I don’t know what the exact reasons were to reject the B747-8I in several competitions. I think airline adhere to herd instincts to some extent.
Will it ever make a true profit, who knows? Sales are steady but slow. When one comes down and kills 800 then that will be the end of it. Who knows.
First, you have to squeeze 800 into it, highest load out so far is 550 as far as I know. The crashes of 1977 (Tenerife) and 1985 (JAL123) didn’t end the B747 program, either.
The new era in Aviation is the plastics. CFRP on main class 1 structural components on “Big” aircraft. I’m sure all the manufacturers that have started this route are sorry. Airbus A350, 787, C series. The weight savings proclaimed are just lies. Maybe 5% on the whole A/c, not the 20% expected.
Costs are 10-fold, both in manufacturing hours and the raw materials, and the fasteners.
The customers (Airlines and users) are not going to pay more for a 5% saving of weight.
CFRP, it’s perfect for panels and nacelles and such like, but when you start making the Spars (Which end up 25% heavier than a metal one), the covers, the floor beams etc. out of plastic, then a whole new untried area is being broached.
OK, class 1 items are plastic in military fighters and small bombers. The wings of such are short stubby and stiff. The pilot can hit the “MUMMY” handle and get out. And don’t forget, it is pathetic in a fire. The Fibers will not melt, but the resin has gone liquid at 200 deg C. It goes jelly at some point earlier than that.
Very interesting points. The failure to have significant weight savings, especially on the B787, let one assume there are some failed plans. However, not sure if it really is due to structural issues.
What becomes apparent is that current airframe technology cannot beat the existing ones by a large margin. The A380 is 20% better than a B747-400. I would credit that half engine and half aerodynamics (the B747-400 has to modern standards terrible aerodynamics).
Sign In
