Re: A3XX vs B747-600 (was: Airbus lawsuit coming?)

From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
Date:         17 Sep 96 02:24:41 
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Pradip Sagdeo wrote:
>Remember the 767-X.  It was never a 767-X.  It was 777 to start with.
>Boeing marketing geniuses did not want any of their competitors to
>think that the company was coming up with a totally new very large
>twin engined aircraft ...

Wherever do you get your "facts" from?!  Some of the early proposals
were very much an improved 767, ranging from a stretch, possibly with
a new wing, to a rather weird-looking plane with an upper deck, from
the wing (roughly) to the tail instead of forward of the wing like on
the 747.  Only when the airlines insisted on a *much* bigger aircraft
did Boeing's thinking move towards an entirely new plane instead of a
767 upgrade.

As for Boeing's competition, they'd have to be incredibly stupid to
see the proposals for a clearly new aircraft and be fooled by the name
saying it was a 767-X.

>Boeing 747-500/600/(700,800, whatever) are in my judgement the same ploy.
>The company has been working on the design of a very large transport
>for a long time, at least 5 years, if not longer.  They will call it
>787 or whatever ...

They were working on both the VLCT (Very Large Commercial Transport)
in conjunction with various Airbus member companys, and the NLA (New
Large Airplane) which was a Boeing-only project.  Both were clearly
new designs and were never presented as anything else.  Both were
eventually deemed to be too expensive for the limited market, and so
Boeing turned to cheaper derivative designs.

If you take a moment to actually look at the 747-500X/600X proposals,
it's clear that it's a 747 derivative -- the wing is new, and they've
added several fuselage plugs, but there's little doubt that it's a
747.  There's no reason for it not to be.

Now, the 747-700 proposal that recently surfaced, using the wing from
the -500X/600X with a new fuselage, probably won't retain much of the
original 1960s design.  But I'd bet they'd still call it a 747, if for
no other reason than name recognition.  People around the world who
couldn't tell a DC-10 from a LearJet know what a 747 is.

Karl Swartz	|Home
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills