From: Jean-Francois Mezei <email@example.com> Organization: Vaxination Informatique Date: 01 Oct 96 23:56:42 References: 1 2 3 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
C. Marin Faure wrote: > It depends on your definition of new. From an aerodyamic standpoint, all > the fuselage does is keep the wind out of your face. So if you take a > fuselage that happens to already be perfect for its purpose, add a brand > new wing using the best aerodynamic knowledge in existance today, put on > state-of-the-art, high-bypass fanjets, and add the most advanced and > reliable airplane systems in the world, it sounds like a new airplane to > me. It may LOOK like a 747, and that's what we're going to call it, but > as far as its performance and capabilities go, it's a new airplane. So, if this is to be a "new" plane in terms of development costs, in what way does Boeing have an advantage over Airbus ? There have been many posts stating that Boeing's "derivatives" would cost "nothing" compared to Airbus' new A3XX. But if both planes are "new" for the major systems point of view, is Airbus really that far behind because it doesn't have a "747" type plane ?