Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Boeing to decide on 737 replacement by 2010

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by FlyingPhotog
    NOT Funny!

    OK well maybe a little funny, but a scary thought.

    HAHAHA

    Heeeey a nice little DC9 shaped Blue Canyon Plane shooting out of MDW or DAL is pretty sweet!

    I do think it would be a scaled down 787 as Paul mentioned above which would look pretty sweet.

    Alex
    Stop Searching. Start Traveling. southwest.com

    Comment


    • #17
      Apparently the engines offered to the modern airliners today are so efficient and powerful, that an airliner doesn't need two engines to fly, How about a Single Engined 737 replacement aircraft ? Haha
      Inactive from May 1 2009.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by MaxPower
        Apparently the engines offered to the modern airliners today are so efficient and powerful, that an airliner doesn't need two engines to fly, How about a Single Engined 737 replacement aircraft ? Haha
        ESOPS?

        Just imagine a 737 with a GE-90 on the tail.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Bok269
          ESOPS?

          Just imagine a 737 with a GE-90 on the tail.
          Doesn't the GE90 have the thrust of about 3 CFM-56's?
          Follow me on Twitter! www.twitter.com/flyingphotog

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by FlyingPhotog
            Doesn't the GE90 have the thrust of about 3 CFM-56's?
            The GE90-115B for the 77W has a thrust of 115,300lbs vs 27,300lb in the CFM-56-7, do the maths . Not to mention that IIRC the GE90 actually has a larger diameter than the 737 .

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by DAL767-400ER
              The GE90-115B for the 77W has a thrust of 115,300lbs vs 27,300lb in the CFM-56-7, do the maths . Not to mention that IIRC the GE90 actually has a larger diameter than the 737 .
              I forgot about that...that would present a bit of a problem.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Bok269
                I forgot about that...that would present a bit of a problem.
                No it would allow airlines to transport passengers from LA to NYC in under 30 seconds, that's all. Can you imagine one of those on a Cessna?

                -Chris

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by FlyingPhotog
                  NOT Funny!

                  OK well maybe a little funny, but a scary thought.
                  I am serious about it.

                  Think about it. More efficient engines would most likely mean a bigger diameter. Now If I look at the ground clearance of an 737 or A320 there is only so much you can do. So either you get one ugly huge landing gear or you will be limited in the growth you can do to the fan diameter. If you mount the engine ala DC-9 you could fit some pretty huge diameter engines and yet still keep the cargo bay and everything as easy accessible as on a 737.
                  My photo editing guide - updated and improved Feb. 2010
                  My Nikon D100,D200,D300, D800, D7200 basic spotting settings guide
                  ACIG - the best resource for military aviation information

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by seahawk
                    I am serious about it.

                    Think about it. More efficient engines would most likely mean a bigger diameter. Now If I look at the ground clearance of an 737 or A320 there is only so much you can do. So either you get one ugly huge landing gear or you will be limited in the growth you can do to the fan diameter. If you mount the engine ala DC-9 you could fit some pretty huge diameter engines and yet still keep the cargo bay and everything as easy accessible as on a 737.
                    Huge diameter engines at the rear would really mess up the weight & balance wouldn't they?
                    Follow me on Twitter! www.twitter.com/flyingphotog

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      They are bigger in diameter not heavier. Or imagine an open-rotor / Prop-fan solution.
                      My photo editing guide - updated and improved Feb. 2010
                      My Nikon D100,D200,D300, D800, D7200 basic spotting settings guide
                      ACIG - the best resource for military aviation information

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Maybe the new 737 will need a high wing to accommodate a geared fan, rather than have very high undercarriage.
                        Has to be bigger than a 737 so that it takes baggage containers, and for quick tunaround times front and back access doors.
                        I always liked the rear airstairs of the DC9 and 727, but doesnt fit an airbridge.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X