Orion: Learning From VE's Mistakes

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by ltd

OK Bud Bud, I'm assuming your an aviation enthusiast.
Firstly, the 747 was conceptualised in December 1966 when Juan Trippe, the then chairman of Pan Am approached boeing about a jet airliner that could carry 350 passengers at 0.9 Mach. Boeing wanted an order for 50 aircraft, Juan Trippe promised an order for 25 with options.

The 747 has been numerously modernised beyond just the cockpit. It has had to. Originally it's MTOW was 675000 lbs and that is now 980000lbs. Structurally, the plane is over 90% stronger than the 100 series.

As better materials have become available such as aluminium and stronger alloys they have been used.
Fasteners have also come along way in 40 years and having over 6 million of them does substantiate quite an improvement in equipment design. The wingbox has been extensively modified, as well as the lengthening of the upper deck of the fuselage. All of the systems on board the 747 from the leading edge flap drives, brakes, insulation, metals etc have been modernised.

The only thing that has retained its original structure is the overall appearance. Whilst this may be similar to the original 100 series even the airframe has undergone substantial redesign. There are fewer stringers now than before as materials have gotten stronger; the wing has undergone substantial changes to the spar structure and spacing and even the pods that hold the engines are revised for the increase from 43000 lbs thrust on the original GE engines to the 62500 lbs thrust developed by the RB211's. There is even a removable fifth and sixth pod on the wings now to allow for transporting of engines - requiring extensive redesign to accomodate effectively an 8 tonne dead weight.

I respectfully submit that the webpage you are looking at is out of date, as the 747 has not been 175 million for quite some time. The current price of a 747 is US$216-247 million for the 400 and 400ER version, the 747-8 or intercontinental is US$272.5-282.5 million. These are the list prices from Boeing.

Additionally, the 747-8 is not a rehashed version of the 400/ER. It too has undergone some extensive redesign with the employment of extensive carbon fibre used in the construction of the fuselage and wings. As a result, bigger windows on the 478 are being used due to greater spaces beween the spars and stringers and the aircraft will have a whole new wing. Humidifiers also will be used due to the lower content of aluminium in this aircraft; similar to the 787.
Ford would have to replace every component inside and out of any current model car and just retain the garnish panels to achieve the same feat as Boeing have done with the 747.

Finally, the 787 will not fall into the same category as the 747, it will be subjected to issues like ETOPS, whereas the 47 doesn't need to worry about that. Here's a little fun fact for you, did you know that the 747 does not have enough fuel to fly from Sydney to LAX?

Thankyou Ltd for pointing all this out. I actually agree with you, like I said the 747-400 is a very modern jet by today’s standards, compared to the 100 series that came first. (Sorry about the pricing, I should have gone straight to the Boeing website first.)

Except for one thing, and that it is still based around the same design which includes aero dynamics, function and form limitations that were implemented into the design of the 1960's. Boeing have done incredibly well to constantly update and upgrade the 747 to date. That put simply means that although retrofitting bigger and more powerful engines and integrating newer avionics and systems has been good for the lifespan of the 747 in general (a must for today’s needs requirements), it would not compare to the development of its Airbus rival of today.

It does not mean that this jet is inferior or more unsafe to the proposed 787 or any other jet for that matter, only to the contrary as this jet already has the runs on the board. But even Boeing recognizes that it is an ageing design. The 747 is still assembled much the same way today as it was nearly 40 years ago but you are right, using newer stronger and lighter materials. Boeing would not design and build this jet the same way today if it started from scratch.

Stretching Airliners is not unique to the 747 or Boeing as you know, but it is still far cheaper to do this than to start with a clean sheet of paper. The 747 is also an established industry icon and proven money maker (for both the airline operator and for Boeing) and that has helped to keep the 747 flying.

This is my point

By comparison the Airbus A380 cost over $12 billion to develop and has the potential to finally end up to over $16 Billion with some cost overruns and failure to start delivery on time.

This will need to be recouped from some where.

I remember someone from Boeing saying last year that Boeing did not think that Airbus would even make a profit from this project and this is why Boeing has not developed the same type of aircraft. Of course you can take that with a pinch of salt coming from a wounded and bleeding Boeing at that time.

The original point you made was that the price of composites was the difference between the price of a 747 which holds more passengers than the price of a Dreamliner designed to hold fewer. While this is true to some degree, it is not the all end all. Even some of these composites are yet to be created, still adding to the development cost overall.

The development cost for these projects is enormous and as I said must be recouped some how. As you know not all aircraft manufacturers make money from their aircraft designs regardless of what they are made of and the same could be said that not every car manufacture makes money from new car elastases either.

The AU was a good example and also the Leyland P76 (COTY) is another. This car had advanced materials such as all alloy V8's and the use of aluminium in the body, but this could not save this from not making any money. As a side note, the P76 cost Leyland $50 million to develop but they could only build and sell 15,000 units over 18 months before they canned it.

Also in comparison a shaken Airbus now say it will cost at least $10 Billion ($5 billion more than first estimated) to develop a rival to match the new Boeing Dreamliner. This is nearly what it initially cost to develop the A380. Who will pay for this. This has the potential to bring Airbus down in much the same as it did for Boeing in the 1960's

This is a Ford forum and I guess nobody really cars too much about this any way.

Kind regards Bud Bud