AirBridgeCargo 747 Suffers Uncontained Engine Failure at Pudong
Boeing 747-8F (photo: Wikipedia)
An AirBridgeCargo 747-800F aborted their takeoff run Tuesday at Pudong International Airport when the aircraft suffered an apparent uncontained engine failure.
Pilots on Air Bridge Flight 198 noticed abnormal indications from one of the GEnx-2B67 engines while taxiing and stopped the takeoff.
The airport inspectors found a large amount of metal fragments scattering over 2.5 kilometers on the left side of the runway.
The aircraft taxied back to the apron and was taken out of service.
There were no injuries reported.
Category: Airnation
RULES FOR COMMENTING BELOW: Profanity, inappropriate comments, NAME CALLING, racial slurs and attacking others on this blog will not be tolerated. Breaking these rules will first get your posts removed and then you will be banned. In other words, spirited debate is always encouraged here but be respectful doing it. :)
Comments (57)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- NTSB Orders Inspections on All Boeing 747-8 Cargo Engines | September 17, 2012
Well that wasn’t long…
Well there goes GE lol.
I’m not surprised, as this 747-8F (VQ-BLR) utilizes the high-thrust version of the GEnx engines installed on the 787s which had similar failures a few months ago.
And this failure was in fact a contained failure, thankfully. As engine manufacturers try to squeeze as much power out of their designs, tolerances are made smaller and materials become more complex and likely to break.
Do correct me if I’m wrong but since when has the 747-8 been rebranded 747-800?
The 747-8 is short for the 747-800
Actually the 747-8i/8F is the new designation from Boeing. They’re not using -800 like they should.
Thanks for Correcting me Chris
Nooo, it’s Boeing’s fault for confusing us! LOL
Hmm you’d swear from how this story was written, that the engine itself was faulty.
From the story source:
“AN engine of a Russian cargo plane was damaged after drawing in some metal fragments scattering on the runway while taxiing at the Pudong International Airport yesterday[...]“
The source article is incorrect. This one’s a little more accurate:
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2019150175_geenginexml.html
Oh deary me, they build these engines to produce enormous thrust and yet the dimensions remain relatively unchanged from the B747-100 or RB211 era!
I often ask myself why the airframers do not ask engine makers to consider double podding i.e B52, smaller engines to achieve the same required power without building super giants far bigger than the A380.
Of course, reasons for the failure are not yet clear but I wonder why cargo planes, if designed for cargo, use the same engines as passenger craft. These huge fans are always prone to stresses and failures whilst I rarely hear of the smaller engines breaking!!
Just musing and I may be in error but I have this belief that things could be done better somewhere………….or am I just ‘plane’ silly?
I agree that engine manufactures are really pushing the envelope of what’s possible. Your idea of double podding smaller engines would definitely be possible, but two smaller engines (even if attaining the same thrust as a single larger one) would overall weigh more, consume more fuel, be more costly, and cause a nightmare for maintenance who would have to service twice the amount of engines). And i do agree smaller engines seem to have better reliability, but that’s due to their simpler design and smaller performance requirement.
You’d be so amazed how small the tolerances are on large engine components. When manufacturing the blades, even the smallest imperfection can cause a balancing nightmare and result in bad fatigue damage. They’re very fuel efficient, but very complicated to work on!
The NTSB is saying this engine did the same thing the 787 engine had done on July 28th 2012. But what I dont understand is they have two different dates for the 787 engine Failure.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2012/120914b.html
William, i think the two dates (July 28 and Aug 31) represent the two 787 failures. One was on an Air India 787 and the other was a Boeing test 787. Then this incident happened with the 747-8F.
I’m glad the NTSB is taking quick action, as it’s clear that there’s a HUGE problem here. The 787 should be OK since it is available with two different engines, but this will be bad for the 747-8 since the -8 only comes with these GE engines.
Well from what I was reading was that the investigation was started on July 28th but they are saying there was an addition to the July 28th issue they are saying there was an issue on on another plane but I think they are assuming the same plane issue lol just got the dates wrong. And yes they 747-8 is in trouble here because unlike the rolls royce issue there was only one but I think this is going to give GE some bad side affects on not only the engine but on future models. Anyways I hope they can get to the bottom of this issue fast before the NTSB orders all the aircrafts with thest types of engines to be grounded because if two issues happen in a litle over a month apart whats the chances of another engine failure.
Ahh i think i figured it out. Here’s the July 28 incident:
http://airnation.net/2012/07/29/boeing-787-engine-testing-malfunction-charleston/
And on August 31st someone apparently discovered fatigue cracking in a 787 engine. I don’t think this was made public until now.
I agree with you that this is really, really bad. My guess is that a lot of planes will be checked, and if not in time, grounded. I wouldn’t be surprised if airlines start the process before the FAA announces anything- they know it will be coming!
Now that makes better since. Lol and at least we can figure things out together lol and being on the same track on alot of things I have said about planes lol. But lets hope GE and the airlines as well as Boeing get on the same on the fast track and fix this issue quickly before something dramatic happens here.
Agreed, teamwork!!
Speaking of teamwork, GE and Boeing need to come up with a solution, which i’m sure they’ll be able to. The fault in the engine appears to be specific to one part, so GE should be able to modify/strengthen the part or come up with some type of retrofit.
This is what happens with new aircraft and new engine types… It’s been happening since the beginning of aircraft manufacturing. That’s why i tend to gravitate towards older aircraft that have been modified through time to get all the bugs out. I’d feel safer on a 747-400 built in 1989 than i would on a new 747-8i, for a lot of reasons other this clearly defective engine design. Aircraft manufacturers are trying to make their aircraft lighter to save airlines fuel, and as a result, they use lighter materials and strength is compromised.
Give me a 35 year old DC9 any day.
Agreed Older aircraft even thou not fuel worthy are most of the times got all there bugs works out of them. And yes as we get more advanced everything seems to go down the hills becaus ethey try to make parts thinner but stronger and its not working to well lol. But like you said give you a DC-9 but give me a Boeing 707 the one true start to jet aircraft if im not mistaken. The Coment was nice but it kept breaking up due to the rivet holes and square windows lol.
Ah, definitely, you’ve got to appreciate the 707! Without a doubt the best jet airliner of it’s time, ranking very well with the DC8. If you like the 707 you HAVE to watch this clip. The BEST takeoff video i have ever found. Turn up your speakers!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyrLorOuOZE
Oh and the Comet 1… what a disaster. Those poor people, they had no idea of the hidden flaw in the aircraft skin. This is a PERFECT example of why i tend to be skeptical of newly introduced aircraft. The engineering plans look fine, the plane looks great, the engines appear to perform wonderfully… but you never know what hidden flaws might come up.
There’s nothing that can compete with years of dependability.
Omg That was so beautiful Just listen to those engines thrust to life all at the same time and not missing a beat. You can’t get that from todays engines alot. And I just loved the sounds of the 707 they are a one of a kind sound you can just hear the power they have. Amen I feel sry for all the passangers that lost there lives in aircraft accidents due to flaws in the system. May all there souls rest in peace. And you do have a point there you never know when a flaw is there even if its staring you in the face at times untill something happens. As for years of dependability if you have a aircraft thats out there for 10-15 years they seem to have most of the flaws out of them rather then these new planes that seem to have so many like the A380 having both wing issues as well as rivet issue in the nose of the plane and they are working to fix them but how long does and what does it take before they really get a fix out there to the airlines to fix these planes before one of them falls out of the sky. Qfa 32 was a near miss when that engine broke apart they were just seconds from falling from the sky. I commend the pilots for there quick reaction and teamwork in bringing that plane down with half the breaks overweight and no reverse thruster on the number 2 engine.
I know, ain’t the sound of those 707 engines great! They SCREAM!! They remind me a lot of the DC9 engines, which have a very distinctive “whine” sound. After planes of the 60′s, we had planes like the DC-10 and L1011, with engines with the distinctive “buzz-saw” sound, also very enjoyable! And then we hit the late 80′s and 90′s when engines started getting quieter… and BORING.
As for the A380, i’m incredibly unimpressed. For the small amount of them in production, statistically the DC9 was a safer aircraft to fly on between 1965-1970 than the A380 has been in the past 5 years. The DC9 was produced in MUCH greater numbers, and though there were more incidents, the numbers came out that you’d be more likely to have an incident on an A380 than people were on the DC9 in the first 5 years of production. You’ve really got to hand it to the engineers at Douglas and Boeing in the 1960′s. They really revolutionized flying, and did it with the passenger in mind.
I prefer the louder engines cause you can just about hear when they are starting to cough up and notice it before the computer does and you can normaly fix the issue. Its also good when you are trying to sleep cause the engines drown out the other cabin noise so you can sleep on long haul flights. And the L1011 was a good aircraft but im unsure if any are still flying today? But dont get me wrong I like the quiet engines so when im home in bed they dont wake me up flying over my house but I like you dont like them because they are nice to listen too.
Ahh me too! I don’t like being on a plane with quiet engines. I’m sure most passengers enjoy the quiet, but i want the EXPERIENCE, the THRILL. That’s what i love most about being in the back of a DC9, those engines whine like crazy! The engines on the DC9 (Pratt and Whitney JT8D) are the same ones used on the 727 and 737-100/200. It’s funny that Eastern used to call the 727 the “Whisper Jet” because at the time, the JT8D was a relatively quiet jet engine. Can you believe that?? LOL
And unfortunately the L1011 is no longer flying commercially in the US, along with the 727 and DC10/MD11. Fuel prices have driven these planes to extinction, it’s really sad.
It’ll be a scary day 30 years from now when the most thrilling aircraft will be a 737-700… Yikes!
And i love when i lay in bed and i can hear planes taking off from my local airport (KPVD) which is about 30 minutes driving time away. By the time they’re over my house they’re at 20k ft, so the sound is usually only very faint. But several times a day, Delta flies the MD88 and i can ALWAYS hear it, very clearly! The family is always thrilled when i can identify it as a Delta MD88 (often being able to recite the flight number based on what time of day it is) just by the distinctive sound of the MD88′s ancient engine note!
Well I live 12 mintues from Ohare so I hear alot of jets yes i love to sit there most days and listen to the jets fly overhead but i do like my quiet time because they will keep you up at night. Its a lot different when there at 2000-3000 feet rather then 20k ft in the air.
What did you think of that airbus plant they are building in the usa. I feel myself that we should have said know untill europe dropped the carbon tax on are airlines. More way for them to make money off the airlines.
William, the L1011 is still flying. The Royal Air Force (UK) have nine ships in service and are used both as refueling craft and as troop carriers and MEDEVAC duties. They regularly overfly my home enroute from BHX to Brize after offloading casualties.
Based at RAF Brize Norton if you wish to come and see!!http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/tristar.cfm
Kindest regards…………Jennifer.
Thanks Jennifer we were still trying to figure that out last night lol?
Amen they seem to build aircraft faster in the past but yet they are more reliable then todays aircrafts. And yes I agree the A380 is a plane that has only 250 orders which first means airbus will probably not break even but also that airbus thought they could build it fast and not look at them they are having to basically rebuild it while its in service. First the engine then then wings and the rivets and also the wiring had to be re done when they first started building the planes for the first few customers. And I heard rumors when they first started flight testing that they were blowing tires on landing due to the weight of the craft. In all reality its to big of a aircraft. I think boeing did it best with the 747 because 40 year later its still flying strong and look at the 747-8I yes it has bad engines but its still a very iconic sight in the sky.
Indeed, most older aircraft are more reliable than today’s, but that’s only because they built them with the intent of them flying for a LONG time. They used heavier materials and when in doubt, over-engineered them. As time progressed and fuel became more costly, manufacturers were forced to use lighter materials which reduced each aircraft’s lifetime but saved fuel- which ended up saving money for airlines. Airlines make more money flying cheaply made planes with short lifespans and great fuel economy, than buying heavy planes with longer lifetimes and poor fuel economy. In the end, passengers pay a little less for a ticket but are thrown on flimsy aircraft with no “thrill”.
I remember watching the flight testing of the A380, and on the first high speed test the landing gear doors came off! Airbus really built this thing only to be as strong as it “had to be”- and quickly learned they made a mistake. With Boeing and the 747, the over-engineered it. That’s why it’s lasted so long.
I’m also very weary of the 747-8i… They engineered new wings for it (with technology similar to that of the A380 wing) and lengthened the fuselage quite a bit. I’m not 100% convinced it’s as durable as it’s older generations, but we’ll find out. And as for the 787 with the composite construction, i’m also not convinced it will hold up well in an accident. The composite skin does not bend like aluminum. Remember the Heathrow BA 777 crash landing? If that happened in a 787 i can promise you it would have cracked open like a glass beer bottle hitting the ground. The composite is strong but very brittle. But in time we’ll see. I’m hope i’m wrong, but i’m not going to be the guinea pig! LOL
O come on lets be guinea pigs and try this. Heck lets give the faa a boeing 787 and tell them to crash it and see what happens to the aircraft. Heck on that note yes it cost money but when they are developing aircraft they should get one they can control from the grond and be able to crash and see the results so they can make the planes safer. I understand that times are always changing and they are always building new planes but what i dont understand is why they dont take a plane that is a strong flier and just build a new engine for it thats got the same trust so it dont tear the frame apart and still be able to fly with less fuel burn but thats to easy. It would save alot of aircrafts sitting around in fields doing nothing but taking up space. Airlines buy cheap planes with better fuel effeincy to save money and put more money in there pockets but should be putting the money back in the airline and buying better planes and saving money by not having to put money into maintence issues.
The boeing 747 was in a class of its own when it was created and it was in the perfect time for it because people were starting to move over a long distance but now a days passangers fly more point to point no long haul really. But the 747 was awesome when it came out and really built so it was strong.
Is the L1011 flying commerical outside of the us today still or no. And yes the 737-7, 8, and 9 will be tommorows look at that aircraft and but the 707 wont be lost no matter what happens nor will the DC9 both brought air travel to the common person rather then the rich person.
Here goes the 747-8 and 787 Groundings Look at this and let me knwo what you think because boeings going to be in trouble with there ge based boeing 787 if this is true as well as the boeing 747-8
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ntsb-urges-grounding-for-certain-genx-powered-787-and-747-8s-376525/
Now we have a third plane with a shaft crack.
http://airnation.net/2012/09/15/ntsb-orders-ge-inspections-boeing/
Yepp, just read it LOL. We saw it coming!
One thing just occured to me about the B787 and the future A350 and that is the Carbon Fibre content that is supposed to be immensely strong but lighter than Aluminium or Titanium.
My fear is about ‘shatter’ on impact. Did anyone see the F1 Grand Prix race at Spa, Belgium when 4 cars collided on the first bend on the first lap? Thousands of carbon fibre ‘shards’ flew any way which way and anyone in line of fire may have been lacerated. In an aircraft that could be passengers, fuel lines, oxygen etc….
Like many others reading these lines, I much preferred the older generation of well built airplanes as the earlier B747s, Tristars, DC10s and DC9′s. Riding the B707 must have been luxury in comparison to the B757 which replaced it.
I am old enough to have flown in all the older jets described above, and Electras, Vicounts etc. I don’t for an instance agree with the 707 being luxury compared to the 757!!!! Quite the opposite, the 757 felt like a sports-car compared to the 707 when it came out. Seat pitch and width is what makes any airliner comfortable on the first hand, but then you have to consider noise levels in the cabin. Nowadays, they are lower than the used to be and that also contributes to comfort greatly.
Now, as far as the composite materials discussion goes, that’s another story! I fully agree that this should worry us all. Hopefully we don’t have a tragedy.
And BTW, the 757 was built to replace the 727, not the 707. The 727 was and still is a brilliant aircraft as is the 757. Its too bad there has been no real replacement built for the 757. The 737-900 may seen to do the trick but it really cannot compare the 727 or the 757 as far as landing and taking of from difficult airports.
She was saying it was a luxury because in those times they were built better and you got better service also you can hear the engines and be able to sleep better because the engines clear out the cabin noise if im not mistaken. I know the 747 way built at the right time but like i said before the one true Jetliner was the 707 because it brought the world into the jet world. But yes I feel you with the new aircrafts they are going to just break apart if they hit the ground so we will have to wait and see and mine me i hope it never happens that one of these craft crash. As for you David The 737-900er was design to replace the boeing 757 and it is able to fly 92 percent of the flights a 757 does. And in a person who love aircrafts you have to enjoy the engine sounds and seeing and hearing these fly over head. I would prefer the 707 over the 757 anyday. Just like Chris prefers the Dc9 more then anything out there lol.
Jennifer, you’re 100% in agreement with what i’ve been worried about with the 787 composite material “shattering” in an impact.
And flying on the 707 WAS more luxurious than flying on the 757. In the day, 707′s had first class lounges, passengers dressed professionally… it was a treat to fly. Today it’s an inconvenience.
Beg to differ Chris. Its one thing to refer to the 707 in its newborn state when there was a certain luxury, but even then, first class was a lot more uncomfortable than even business class nowadays. The best you could get seat-wise was similar to an AA 757 domestic first class nowadays. Yes, we were all dressed in suits, but that didn’t make flying more comfortable! Classy maybe, depending on your point of view. It was glamorous, and very expensive. I did trips across the pacific via ship because it was still cheaper than plane! Amazing but that’s the way it was. Seat pitch was better in coach, but that’s about it. As time went on, the 707 lost all its lounges and such and became just the same as an in service 737 or 757 nowadays. All things considered, if you have good seat pitch, a modern airliner is more comfortable to an older one.
Well I see were your coming from David but in my eyes I am thinking Chris and myself are talking about the way you had more leg room better foods and service. It isnt all about the seat you were in but more the service and cabin atmosphere. I also in my mind feel that from the way the older prop planes were with a small vibration you dont notice that on the 707 much so in its heyday(not spelled right sry) it was a very luxury aircraft.
That’s exactly what i was getting at William. The airlines made the 707 a really luxurious aircraft. By the time the 757 was introduced, the idea was to fit as many passengers on board as possible for as cheaply as possible.
Thats what they say to great minds think alike lol. the Dc3 was a great aircraft still glad to see a few flying around the world today. I know someplace in brazil or mexico i forget which they use them as cargo planes for small villages and every once and a while they do have passangers aboard. I may have to find out were sometime and go take a joy ride lol. Didn’t Boeing make the 707 out of the B-52 bomber shell?
Oh definitely, the DC-3 is widely used in South American transporting produce and passengers from village to village. The DC-3 was built so well and could land on unpaved runways. The DC-3 is also used to transport passengers in the NTW Canada under the operation of Buffalo Airways.
I’m not sure how much of the 707 design came from the B-52, but i doubt very much. I know the 707 went through stages, as dimensions kept changing as competition with Douglas increased. Every time Douglas would finish a design, Boeing would scrap their tooling and re-design the 707 for things like widening the fuselage to “one-up” Douglas’ DC-8. This went on for a while before the final design was settled upon.
From what I understand on the 707 that Boeing used both the B-47 and B-52 to play a major role in the development in the plane. They had some good choices before both were militry planes as well as highly used in high stress conditions. I myself feel boeing had the upper hand in making the plane over douglas thats why they did such a good job. I am not saying the Douglas didn’t know what they were doing because they did make one hell of an aircraft but eventually someplace in there running slipped and boeing picked them up. I am guessing it may have been the dc-10 that started there fall but that just a thought. But like I try to say the boeing 707 is a tank you can do just about anything with it and its still in tacked lol. I do how ever have a question. Wasnt the 707 orginally called the Dash 80 and or the Boeing 367-80. When and why did they start calling it the Boeing 707 even though i like the name better.
I think Joe Patroni would agree that the B707 was built like a tank and I think this conversation reflects the “greater strength over economics” debate of the time. Why else did the USAF order so many in KC-135 mode, EC3-Sentry/AWACS mode and so forth?
This is how aircraft should be built, able to fly upwards of 50 years like the B52 rather than being scrapped after 25 years like the B747-400 is already today?
That’s exactly right Jennifer! The 707 was a much lighter aircraft than the DC-8 and that’s exactly why they use it as the in-flight refueling tanker (KC135). But in terms of age, these KC135′s have been structurally re-enforced. No standard 707 could fly for 50 years under regular use. It wasn’t built to last that long. Boeing sacrificed strength for a decrease in weight to save airlines fuel costs.
The “707 vs DC-8″ debate is the same as the “737 vs DC9″ debate, and in both cases the former “won” because of rising fuel costs. Cheaper and lighter aircraft survive while strong and heavy aircraft die. The latter is better for the passenger, but in the end, airlines only care about money.
Actually, Douglas had more experience than Boeing at the time. The only reason Boeing beat Douglas to the jet-age is because Douglas’ philosophy was more “cautious” than that of Boeing. Before the 707, Douglas was without a doubt the leader in commercial aircraft. With the DC-3, DC-4, and DC-6 Boeing was fearful that they were being pushed out. So, they took the risk and decided to make a commercial jet aircraft knowing it would either make or break the company. And of course it worked.
The 707 was released before the DC-8, but the DC-8 was a stronger and more well-built aircraft. The 707 airframe was given a maximum of 20,000 cycles while the DC-8 airframe a maximum of 50,000 cycles. That’s why the DC-8 is still flying today as a freighter for many carriers such as DHL, while there isn’t a 707 being flown anywhere in the US besides as OMEGA’s in flight tanker.
The 707 did have an interesting history and went through various designs (and name designations) before the final one was settled upon. The reason the DC-8 fuselage is a few inches thinner than that of the 707 is because Boeing waited until Douglas built the DC-8 tooling before making the 707 fuselage just a little bigger.
In the end, the 707 fuselage was a little “wider” than the DC-8, the 707 was lighter and had better fuel economics which is why airlines bought more of them than DC-8′s. But the DC-8 was without a doubt built stronger and was designed to last longer than the 707. It was also faster than the 707, and holds a record that still stands today!
Amen nothing today has or will be built like it was in the past. I hear the Boeing 747-400 being scrapped at ages of around 15-16 years and they should be still flying till they are around 40. I mean i wish Joe Sutter was still building planes today because when he came out with 747 he did a heck of a job getting the plans off the ground as well as the plane. What airline did he play for minus the ones in the movies Airport lol.
As for Chris thanks for Correcting me. Douglas did have better expericance in passanger aircfraft the boeing did. I how ever didn’t know douglas was building the dc 8 at the same time boeing was building the 707 i learned something new today lol. But I do see your point that the planes were built strong and douglas out did themselfs in strength which was a good thing for them but I wouldn’t call the strength a feat because they had been building commerical for many years prior to the dc-8. How ever if the Dc-8 were lighter and then boeings 707 I feel that the DC-8 would be the best selling commerical plane of its day as well as boeing not being here today. On that other note there is no debate between the 707 and the Dc-8 because how can you debate two aircraft that are simlar but so far apart if you know what im saying.
Yeah, it’s a shame to see 747′s being scrapped at such a young age. But the only way they could get such a vastly sized aircraft to fly was to build it “light”, and the only way to make it light is to use lighter and more delicate materials. And reduced strength means a short lifetime. Boeing took a HUGE risk with the 747. They used EVERY penny they had to design and build the 747. If the 747 failed, the company would have also. I’ve never liked Boeing’s risky philosophy, but they’ve been very lucky.
Douglas always over-built their aircraft and that’s why they’ve outlived every Boeing equivalent. We have 1930′s DC-3s flying today while we don’t even recognize the name of the Boeing equivalent (Boeing 247). We have DC9s from the 1970s flying passengers at Delta while the only 737-200s still flying are in Alaska and South America as freighters. We see 1970s DC-10s flying for Fedex while the only 747-100s still flying are in Iran. And like i said earlier, the only 707s still flying are in the military as tankers, while DC-8s are still flying as freighters in the US with airlines such as DHL. The list goes on and on… The only reason Douglas is no longer here today is because of the rise in fuel prices. Douglas was able to lead the industry for 50 years because fuel was cheap and airlines wanted well-built aircraft. Not in today’s world, heavy and well-built aircraft burn too much fuel, and airlines can’t make any money flying them.
And the DC-8 and 707 were definitely being built concurrently. The DC-8 first flew in 1958 while the 707 first flew in 1957. They were being designed at the same time, and Boeing and Douglas often changed their designs whenever the opponent released new plans. Boeing waited for Douglas to finish the DC-8 fuselage tooling (so they couldn’t change anything) and increased the fuselage width of the 707 so they’d have something over the DC-8. This is how desperate Boeing was at the time. The only way Boeing could stay competitive was if they could “one-up” Douglas who was the clear leader at the time.
Douglas’ fate ended in the late 1960′s when Boeing was designing the 747 and Douglas was merely extending the DC-8 to the DC-8 “super 61″ and “super 63″. Douglas merged with McDonnell Aircraft in 1967.
Boeing’s luck with the 747 was a success and Douglas no longer had the upper hand. They completely RUSHED the design of the DC-10 which caused a few design flaws which the media took advantage of. MD tried with the MD-11 but they never recovered. McDonnell Douglas was bought by Boeing in 1997.
I agree David, there’s nothing specific to the 707 that makes it any more “luxurious” than the 757, but when the 707 was flying before the 757, it was more luxurious as Airlines made them that way.
The 707, 727, 737 and 757 all share the same fuselage cross section. Same width, same height, just different lengths. In fact, the 707, 727 and 737 all share the same nose section!
There was no aircraft built “to be” a direct replacement for the 757, but when Boeing expanded the 737 to the 737-900, orders for the 757 reduced since the 737 now had the capacity of the 757 at a much cheaper price. The 757 was however a direct replacement for the 727.
The DC-3 also never had a replacement aircraft. No aircraft was ever built with the intention of replacing the DC-3. It was a perfect aircraft and all replacement design attempts simply failed.
You guys are a bunch of PARANOIACS. Carbon-Fiber planes are very safe, lighter then metal planes (so better for the environment) and stronger then anything out there. ANA had the same worries as you, Boeing sent them a piece of Carbon-Fiber and ANA did everything they could to destroy it and heck the piece did not even have a single dent after it.
EI-EBB,
I’m sure your post will be edited due to the name calling, but before it is i’ll try to set you straight.
There is NO evidence to support your “theory” that composite aircraft are safe. A 787 has yet to have a crash landing so no one knows how it will hold up. If you actually READ the comments before posting your little “rants” you’d figure out why composites do NOT hold up well in impact.
And composite planes are NOT better “for the environment”. Where you’re relating plastic to being beneficial to the environment is beyond me. But please don’t try to explain it, for i’m afraid i’ll actually understand.
I’ve held a piece of the 787 composite skin in my hand, i can tell you it has absolutely NO flexibility to it whatsoever. Unlike aluminum which can “bend” and absorb an impact, the composite skin will simply transfer the impact forces to the aircraft frame and passengers.
The next time you want to have one of your little “rants”, cite your facts because quite frankly we don’t need another pariah on this site.
I totally Agree with Chris on this one you are you are looking at a very light but yet very vuranable piece of plastic if im not mistaken. Its like taking a piece of glass and flying it for years it may be strong but once you crash it bang it shatters and theres no putting it back together. As for Chris you are taken the words right out of my mouth. I totally agree EI-EBB doesnt’ know what hes talking about saying that the 757 doesnt have a plane to replace it lol. The 737-900er is right there replacing it as it should. I mean thats a given lol. Also on Jennifers and yours note as well the 707 had more space and you got more lounges better food and close to the same time flying as you did in the 757 but if im not mistaken and please correct me if im wrong but the 707 could fly futher then the 757.
Ana did damage ther carbon fiber plane when they ran it into a Jetway and dented the engine cowling.