Driving by DCA

Greetings PWP. Bored at the old homestead....so time to poast.

fin 645

Misery

Pat89339

I remember the good old days of black Friday when it was fun to go shopping. Now it's not.

AlaskaAir738

747 trijet
During the late 1960s and early 1970s, Boeing studied the development of a shorter 747 with three-engines to compete with the smaller L-1011 TriStar and DC-10. The 747 trijet would have had more payload, range and passenger capacity. The center engine would have been fitted in the tail with an S-duct intake similar to the L-1011's. However, engineering studies showed that a total redesign of the 747 wing would be necessary. Maintaining the same 747 handling characteristics would be important to minimize pilot retraining. Boeing decided instead to pursue a shortened four-engine 747 that resulted in the 747SP.[171] In the 1990s, the Boeing 777, a long range twinjet airliner smaller than the 747-400 entered service in the market where the 747-300 had been targeted.[172]
[edit]

Pat89339

Welcome back!

fin 645

There's Nothing I Would Rather Be

Driving by DCA

I am hoping to do as little as possible tomorrow. Especially since I'm likely to be out very late tonight at the football game and then the after party.

AlaskaAir738

Boeing announced the 747-500X and -600X at the 1996 Farnborough Airshow.[85] The proposed models would have combined the 747's fuselage with a new 251 ft (77 m) span wing derived from the 777. Other changes included adding more powerful engines and increasing the number of tires from two to four on the nose landing gear and from 16 to 20 on the main landing gear.[173]
The 747-500X concept featured an increased fuselage length of 18 ft (5.5 m) to 250 ft (76.2 m) long, and the aircraft was to carry 462 passengers over a range up to 8,700 nautical miles (10,000 mi, 16,100 km), with a gross weight of over 1.0 Mlb (450 Mg).[173] The 747-600X concept featured a greater stretch to 279 ft (85 m) with seating for 548 passengers, a range of up to 7,700 nmi (8,900 mi, 14,300 km), and a gross weight of 1.2 Mlb (540 Mg).[173] A third study concept, the 747-700X, would have combined the wing of the 747-600X with a widened fuselage, allowing it to carry 650 passengers over the same range as a 747-400.[85] The cost of the changes from previous 747 models, in particular the new wing for the 747-500X and -600X, was estimated to be more than $5 billion.[85] Boeing was not able to attract enough interest to launch the aircraft.[86]
[edit]747X and 747X Stretch

jms_uk

Dear PWP crowd, especially UA experts:

Do you think this is safe option. in terms of time left between flights? Not sure about delays from LAS and SAN...

LAS-SFO 27DEC dep 1.39p arr 3.25p
SFO-SAN 27DEC dep 8.06p

and also
SAN-SFO 30DEC dep 6.17p arr 7.53p
SFO-BOS 30DEC dep 10.49p

I am about to buy SFO-SAN-SFO on a separate ticket, but trying to work out optimal time between the flights...

AlaskaAir738

As Airbus progressed with its A3XX study, Boeing in 2000 offered the market a 747 derivative as an alternative. This was a more modest proposal than the previous -500X and -600X that would retain the 747's overall wing design and add a segment at the root, increasing the span to 229 ft (69.8 m).[174] Power would have been supplied by either the Engine Alliance GP7172 or the Rolls-Royce Trent 600, which were also proposed for the 767-400ERX.[175] A new flight deck based on the 777's would be used. The 747X aircraft was to carry 430 passengers over ranges of up to 8,700 nmi (10,000 mi, 16,100 km). The 747X Stretch would be extended to 263 ft (80.2 m) long, allowing it to carry 500 passengers over ranges of up to 7,800 nmi (9,000 mi, 14,500 km).[174] Both would feature an interior based on the 777's signature architecture.[176] Freighter versions of the 747X and 747X Stretch were also studied.[177]


Like its predecessor, the 747X family was unable to garner enough interest to justify production, and it was shelved along with the 767-400ERX in March 2001, when Boeing announced the Sonic Cruiser concept.[87] Though the 747X design was less costly than the 747-500X and -600X, it was criticized for not offering a sufficient advance from the existing 747-400. The 747X did not make it beyond the drawing board, but the 747-400X being developed concurrently moved into production to become the 747-400ER.[178]

Pat89339

posting more

Driving by DCA

Thanks, busy couple of weeks at work kept me out of the PWP. But I have a feeling I'll make up for it over the next couple of days.

AlaskaAir738

After the end of the 747X program, Boeing continued to study improvements that could be made to the 747. The 747-400XQLR (Quiet Long Range) was meant to have an increased range of 7,980 nmi (9,200 mi, 14,800 km), with improvements to boost efficiency and reduce noise.[179][180] Improvements studied included raked wingtips similar to those used on the 767-400ER and a sawtooth engine nacelle for noise reduction.[181] Although the 747-400XQLR did not move to production, many of its features were used for the 747 Advanced, which has now been launched as the 747-8.

Pat89339

Setting up slingbox to post more and watch tv.

psollitt

hello all.... happy Thanksgiving to all my friends across the pond