|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jul 4, 2016 15:47:28 GMT 1
I am still hopeful of a new design, possibly the oval fuesalge design, giving better width in the cabin ?
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Jul 4, 2016 20:52:24 GMT 1
There is also the issue of long plane on short routes - it takes longer to load-unload than WB. But the WB carries two empty aisles, has much more drag due to wider body ..... is from principle heavier / seat, so I do not see new plane 2-3-2 as 757 successor.
It was said in the beginning that 787 is the 767 successor !
To previous remark on 322 - I did not thought completely new wing just to tweak a bit the existing one. I do believe that AB actions on this will heavily depend on BO - what will they do.....
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Jul 4, 2016 22:00:01 GMT 1
The 7E7 started as an 767 sized airplane. Customers asked for a larger airplane which became the 787.
The 787 is significant heavier than the 767; too much weight for short routes.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jul 4, 2016 22:49:26 GMT 1
There is also the issue of long plane on short routes - it takes longer to load-unload than WB. But the WB carries two empty aisles, has much more drag due to wider body ..... is from principle heavier / seat, so I do not see new plane 2-3-2 as 757 successor. It was said in the beginning that 787 is the 767 successor ! To previous remark on 322 - I did not thought completely new wing just to tweak a bit the existing one. I do believe that AB actions on this will heavily depend on BO - what will they do..... I thought this new MOM plane was not for short routes ? Probably for 3,000 - 4,000 mile routes. Turn around times are usually longer for these flights. If the plane goes to a gate with one air bridge what's the difference in loading, unloading time between an NB or WB ? PS I always like when flying on a long thin one like a B757 (200 or even 300) that they put the stairs up at the rear as well, I get some fresh air.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jul 4, 2016 23:22:27 GMT 1
The 7E7 started as an 767 sized airplane. Customers asked for a larger airplane which became the 787. The 787 is significant heavier than the 767; too much weight for short routes. A B787-8 is only 6ft longer than a B767-3, how with all the composites can a B787 be heavier than a 30+ year old B767 !
|
|
sciing
in service - 1 year
Enter your message here...
Posts: 2,502
|
Post by sciing on Jul 5, 2016 6:18:35 GMT 1
The 7E7 started as an 767 sized airplane. Customers asked for a larger airplane which became the 787. The 787 is significant heavier than the 767; too much weight for short routes. A B787-8 is only 6ft longer than a B767-3, how with all the composites can a B787 be heavier than a 30+ year old B767 ! Much higher load due much higher MTOW for much higher fuel capicity for much higher range?
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Jul 5, 2016 8:43:26 GMT 1
The 7E7 started as an 767 sized airplane. Customers asked for a larger airplane which became the 787. The 787 is significant heavier than the 767; too much weight for short routes. A B787-8 is only 6ft longer than a B767-3, how with all the composites can a B787 be heavier than a 30+ year old B767 ! Because the 787 was designed for ULH missions, the 767 not. Empty weight: > 767-200: 83t > 787-8: 118t See, the 787 is just way too heavy.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Jul 19, 2016 8:30:23 GMT 1
|
|
someone
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,236
|
Post by someone on Jan 11, 2017 10:17:52 GMT 1
Loved Bregier's comment today: "We [Airbus] own the middle of the market"
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Jan 19, 2017 15:47:01 GMT 1
|
|