747-8

[born_2_fly]

There's no brainer that the 787 will be technically more advanced than the Airbus A380. We all know that.

What makes you say, or think that? To be blunt, almost all aircraft technology is similar nowerdays. So unless a huge jump is made with some radical new technology, this comment is hardly fair.

Also, why do all of Boeings initial ideas for new aircraft have those silly wavy winglets, when they are so adament that raked wintips are the answer?

Born_2_fly

[C]

I wouldn't believe the statistics too much. Especially when they're for an aircraft that doesn't exist yet.

Well said that man...

So unless a huge jump is made with some radical new technology, this comment is hardly fair.

Maybe Rolls Royce are developing an engine that runs without fuel...

[Woodlouse2002]

Maybe Rolls Royce are developing an engine that runs without fuel...

Engines that Airbus will be able to use also. Inless they're incompatable like Windows and Mac...

[Nexus]

What makes you say, or think that? To be blunt, almost all aircraft technology is similar nowerdays. So unless a huge jump is made with some radical new technology, this comment is hardly fair.

Also, why do all of Boeings initial ideas for new aircraft have those silly wavy winglets, when they are so adament that raked wintips are the answer?

Born_2_fly

The 787 will use even more composite materials than Airbus. Around 50% of the aircraft will be made of graphite, glass/carbon fibre etc. That is some 12% more than the A380.

Boeing has also decided (about time) to not rely on bleed air for air condition and hydraulics. Instead 4 225kW-generators will take care of the electric supply. This off course means higher engine thrust and will furthermore improve fuel efficiency since conventional aircrafts need pipes, heat exchangers and other heavy equipment  to cool the hot bleed air (which is some 1000C at times).

Shall I go on?

[Icelandair Pilot]

I wouldn't believe the statistics too much. Especially when they're for an aircraft that doesn't exist yet.

I would. You can tell anyways. Smaller, lighter, faster.

[born_2_fly]

[quote]

Boeing has also [glb]decided[/glb]
(about time) to not rely on bleed air for air condition and hydraulics. Instead 4 225kW-generators will take care of the electric supply. This off course means higher engine thrust and will furthermore improve fuel efficiency since conventional aircrafts need pipes, heat exchangers and other heavy equipment

[cspyro21]

Wow!!

It looks like a 747/7e7 hybrid!!!

[chomp_rock]

I wouldn't believe the statistics too much. Especially when they're for an aircraft that doesn't exist yet.

Aye woodlouse, but Boeing has a knack for surpassing their projections for performance.  They tend to underestimate their aircraft.

That said it's a beautiful aircraft, looks like a shapelier version of the of the normal 747-400, like it's big sister if you will

[Nexus]

Notice decided, the technology to do so has been available for quite some time. Its not like Boeing has just plucked it out of thin air. Airbus just didnt decide to use the technology, and im sure they have their reasons to do so, it may be more economical towards what THEIR customers want. Carbon fibre and graphite isnt always best for every type of aircraft. So just remember this technology isnt all that new, it was available to Airbus but they just chose not to make a plane 100% out of this

Boeing has yet to unveil how they will handle the "non bleed-air" solution. No-one knows how their engineers have designed it.
And tell me why customers (airlines) DON'T want to have even more efficient engines, and lesser fuelburn?

Airbus couldn't have the same solution simply because their are NO engines to choose from today. So the technology is indeed new since there are no products on the market today  ;)

[Woodlouse2002]

Boeing doesn't design engines. They buy them from other companies such as Rolls-Royce. Therefore any innovations there will be avaliable to everyone and not just one company.

Also it's all very well saying that you're going to make a plane out of carbon fibre and other composites. But doing so and keeping the whole package down at a competative price is going to be a challenge.

[Nexus]

Boeing doesn't design engines. They buy them from other companies such as Rolls-Royce. Therefore any innovations there will be avaliable to everyone and not just one company.

Believe me, there are a wee bit more details when it comes to buying engines. It's not like when you go shopping for cereals.
Granted bleed-less engines are being offered on the A350 aswell, but GE's bleed less engine was designed to meet Boeings aggressive demands for their 787...and wouldn't you know. Airbus jumped on the bandwagon aswell

"Based on the architecture of the renowned GE90 engine, the GEnx is being designed to meet the aggressive performance targets for the twin-engine 787"

So the engine industry doesnt quite work as you believe Woodlouse. Boeing developed their aircraft with close cooperation with General Electric.

I dont' see the point in arguing that the 787 wont be technical superior, because it will be. Aviation industry is gong to take a huge leap forward.

[Craig.]

The whole reason we have the A350 on the table is because of those Bleedless engines. When it was first announced Airbus came along and said, thats fine, we will shove them under our A330's and we're set. However because the design of the A330 wouldn't allow it, and Airbus then saw how big of a leap the 787 would be, they had little choice but to launch the A350.

[Nexus]

The whole reason we have the A350 on the table is because of those Bleedless engines. When it was first announced Airbus came along and said, thats fine, we will shove them under our A330's and we're set. However because the design of the A330 wouldn't allow it, and Airbus then saw how big of a leap the 787 would be, they had little choice but to launch the A350.

Agree totally.
But one has to wonder...how the heck will airbus be able to afford the A350  ???

[Hagar]

So the engine industry doesnt quite work as you believe Woodlouse. Boeing developed their aircraft with close cooperation with General Electric.

This might be true but other aircraft manufacturers do the same thing. Consequently any technological improvements are available to everyone.

I don't wish to become involved in an argument as to which is better. There is a certain amount of politics involved & opinions are often influenced by where people happen to live. Time will tell whether one or the other is the more successful. In the end these are two manufacturers in competition with each other which can only be good for the industry as a whole, if not the aircraft manufacturers themselves. There is a great deal of money at stake here & if one fails it could involve bankruptcy & the loss of thousands of jobs. I've always thought that there's room for both.

[Craig.]

[quote]

Agree totally.
But one has to wonder...how the heck will airbus be able to afford the A350