3 ms·
I agree with you, and I would have expected Ian Bogost to take a more holistic view. Talking about why, for example, Boeing never build a larger passenger airp
by GMoromisato 4mo ago
I agree with you, and I would have expected Ian Bogost to take a more holistic view.
Talking about why, for example, Boeing never build a larger passenger airplane, or why the Concorde is no longer flying, would actually make for an interesting analysis of technology and business.
Why did the progression from the Wright brothers to the 747 not continue for the next fifty years? The answer has to do with physics and economics rather than lack of American ambition or excellence.
- WalterBright 4mo ago> Boeing never build a larger passenger airplane 1. there wasn't demand for one - airliner designs are driven by the customers 2. the airport terminals would have to be rebuilt 3. the runways would have to be redone to support the weight > why the Concorde is no longer flying It lost prodigious amounts of money on every flight. The Concorde was a prestige project, not a practical one. > Why did the progression from the Wright brothers to the 747 not continue for the next fifty years? The 747 is far more technologically primitive than today's airliners. Take a good close look at the wing shape of the two, for starters.
- GMoromisato 4mo agoAnd that's my point: Your answers are far more interesting than Ian Bogost's throwaway assertion that America just wasn't ambitious enough and that aircraft engineering peaked with the 747.
- projektfu 4mo agoYou could say that engineering excellence at GE (and competition with RR and P&W) led to ETOPS which made it less attractive to simply build larger airplanes with 3+ engines. Why send one 747 per day when you can send multiple A330s or 767s, accommodating more schedules?