4 ms·

The success of the 747 was wrongly analyzed by Airbus: it was not successful because it was big, it was successful because it could fly further than anything el

by Xixi 9y ago

The success of the 747 was wrongly analyzed by Airbus: it was not successful because it was big, it was successful because it could fly further than anything else. It is however because it was big that it could fly far: if I remember correctly the fuel needed to fly grows with the surface of the plane (in 2 dimensions), while the fuel that can be hauled grows with its volume (in 3 dimensions). The 777 had already made the 747 largely obsolete, and the kings of long haul flights going forward will be Boeing 787-9 and Airbus A350-900. With probably a mix of both in most long haul fleets. It's surprising that Airbus did hit the jackpot with its A330, seemingly by accident, and yet seems to have been unable to foresee that it really was the future. Boeing built a better A330, called 787, and even though the A350 is a success, simply by virtue of being a larger plane that goes further it will probably not sell as much as the 787.

TremendousJudge 9y ago
Also, up until relatively recently regulators wouldn't let twin engines fly transoceanic flights because they deemed it too risky. They added ETOPS[1] regulation in order to allow this [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
- lathiat 9y ago
  This is important, ETOPS regulation changes are a big reason twin jets are resurging
- dmfdmf 9y ago
  Prior to this change you needed 3 or more engines to cross large bodies of water or ice. When ETOPS was revised the abbreviation was backronynmed to "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim".
digi_owl 9y ago
Yeah my understanding is that the 747 was a success because it could cross the major oceans in a single go, something smaller twin engines could not do at the time. This while providing a price pr seat that most people could accept. Now we have twin engines that can at least do the Atlantic trip just as well, allowing all manner of smaller airlines to offer trips from a multitude of airports.
- masklinn 9y ago
  > Yeah my understanding is that the 747 was a success because it could cross the major oceans in a single go, something smaller twin engines could not do at the time. Technically they could but regulations didn't allow it at the time: 1953 FAA regulations required that twin-engined aircrafts always be within 60mn of an airport, and ICAO had slightly less restrictive limits of 90mn. This meant some routes were entirely unfeasible, or the flight path required to keep within 60~90mn of an airport at all time made it uneconomically unfeasible. 3- and 4-engined aircrafts were not affected by these rules (starting in '64 for the 3-engined ones). The rules started being relaxed in the mid-80s with the introduction of ETOPS ratings (initially 120 and 180, now up to 370).

by Xixi 9y ago

TremendousJudge 9y ago

Also, up until relatively recently regulators wouldn't let twin engines fly transoceanic flights because they deemed it too risky. They added ETOPS[1] regulation in order to allow this [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

lathiat 9y ago
This is important, ETOPS regulation changes are a big reason twin jets are resurging
dmfdmf 9y ago
Prior to this change you needed 3 or more engines to cross large bodies of water or ice. When ETOPS was revised the abbreviation was backronynmed to "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim".

digi_owl 9y ago

Yeah my understanding is that the 747 was a success because it could cross the major oceans in a single go, something smaller twin engines could not do at the time. This while providing a price pr seat that most people could accept. Now we have twin engines that can at least do the Atlantic trip just as well, allowing all manner of smaller airlines to offer trips from a multitude of airports.

masklinn 9y ago
> Yeah my understanding is that the 747 was a success because it could cross the major oceans in a single go, something smaller twin engines could not do at the time. Technically they could but regulations didn't allow it at the time: 1953 FAA regulations required that twin-engined aircrafts always be within 60mn of an airport, and ICAO had slightly less restrictive limits of 90mn. This meant some routes were entirely unfeasible, or the flight path required to keep within 60~90mn of an airport at all time made it uneconomically unfeasible. 3- and 4-engined aircrafts were not affected by these rules (starting in '64 for the 3-engined ones). The rules started being relaxed in the mid-80s with the introduction of ETOPS ratings (initially 120 and 180, now up to 370).