This is how the Boeing 797 will look like ✈ FlightAware

이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.

종료

FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?

FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..

종료

← Back to Squawk list

91

This is how the Boeing 797 will look like

1년 전 제출됨

Seattle - More information is now available about the Boeing's NMA, New Mid-market Airplane. Journalist Jon Ostrower reports the planning around the aircraft and holds an image giving some idea how the future device will look like. (jonostrower.com) 기타...

55 멤버 코멘트

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Erik Bruner 1년 전 12

This is how the Boeing 797 will look like
Great Grammar!
Pretty sure 'what' would have been a better choice, or lose the word 'like'

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

rob strong 1년 전 4

Came to the comments for this.... x1000.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

babyracer 1년 전 3

Same here.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

jasonforpres 1년 전 4

I cringe too. Common mistake I hear a lot in Europe.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

Cansojr 1년 전 -1

Huh...cringe some more you twinkie!

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

habachi 1년 전 3

Came here to comment on the grammar.

Quality contribution, though.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

Cansojr 1년 전 1

Who says so eh?

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

av8rdav 1년 전 0

I came to read the article, but you can't argue the grammar is awful.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

garritt 1년 전 0

who really cares.......unless their life will be changed because of it

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

Bob Harrington 1년 전 6

I care. There is a marked decline in the quality of journalism, and written discussion in general of late. May not kill me, but it bugs me...

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

av8rdav 1년 전 1

That's the first thing I thought.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

Cansojr 1년 전 1

Thank you kind sir, for indeed you are a literate gentleman unlike some of the other buffoons of illiterate gibberirish.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

Torsten Hoff 1년 전 6

Let's not overlook that this is one person's guess of what the 797 *may* look like. Nothing official.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

Colin Pierce 1년 전 6

It says in the article that it's an official design, though.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

Brad Littlejohn 1년 전 1

Is it me, or does this look like what a smaller version of the 787-3 would have been?

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

btweston 1년 전 1

I think he overlooked that.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

Bob Harrington 1년 전 1

It also says "Highly unlikely to be the final form of the eventual 797"

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

Christian Parada 1년 전 3

Looks like the Dreamliner. I wonder if the doors will open like they do on the 767.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

Aldrei Zanette 1년 전 5

It looks very nice.

Way to go to the folks at Boeing.

In my opinion it resembles the good old 757, anyone else agrees with me ?

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

Matt Harris 1년 전 2

Agreed, or a hybrid between the 757 and a 767. Nice looking plane.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

jbqwik 1년 전 1

yep, agree. nice looking a/c

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

Tommy Boy 1년 전 2

WOW! I have never seen a passenger jet that looked like this! Big wings on BOTH sides of a long, flattened cigar tube with a pointy front. And what do they call that big thing at the tail-end that sticks way up? What a radical departure from what one would commonly see at ANY airport.

It remains to be seen, however, if they can get the windows to actually line up with the seats.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

erisajd 1년 전 2

EVERY single airliner of the future will be two motor, ETOPS capable with a range anywhere from 2000-7000nm. And I'll be right.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

Ryan Santiago 1년 전 2

They need to make a new edition of the 757 bring that back!!! just like airbus is redoing there a330 bring back the 757'Max

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

Steven monfrini 1년 전 1

I was hoping for something like a rocket ship but no, still looks like an airplane. Wings, engines,vertical and horizontal stabilizers. Bummer.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

JOHN NORTHCUT 1년 전 1

Yes, lose the word "like" on the end -- that should fix the problem. Is the author of the headline listening?

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

canuck44 1년 전 1

By Boeing's best estimates these aircraft will not be into production for 8-10 years, but at the same time they are projecting the use of existing and proven technology. This is like the ultimate hybrid. The bugs on using composites have been worked out, the wing design looks like it only needs to be resized and even the windshields are to be borrowed designs.
I suspect Boeing will have to put on a major push to get this aircraft put together if they are to stay in the 757 replacement market. As the costs of keeping the existing 757's in the air, replacement will look every more appealing and the only player for 10 years will be the A-321LR. If airlines buy them, they will expect 20 years out of their purchases which will leave the 797 out of the market for up to 20 years. As Boeing does not appear to be reinventing the wheel, they should be able to shorten the lead time by a couple of years.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

JOHN NORTHCUT 1년 전 1

Really: "how" and not "what"? Back to grammar school for someone, methinks.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

victorbravo77 1년 전 1

Successfully using off the shelf parts in new niches/designs can be a market changer.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

Mark Thomas 1년 전 1

No one else think that rendering looks like an A321, minus the boomerang winglets etc?? I've often wondered if there is a 'perfect' aerodynamic shape and it seems that as they get closer to achieving it, the aircraft begin to look more and more similar? Don't bash me in the comments, I'm an avid planespotter, I know the difference between an Airbus and a Boeing! Just saying'!

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

Bob Harrington 1년 전 1

Quite reasonable. Sometimes technical requirements do result in similar designs. Shuttle/Buran, Concorde/Tu-144, etc. I used to be able to identify airliners quite easily; these days, all the regional jets and more manufacturers building twin engine birds, it can be challenging - especially if one is working with only a silhouette or less than optimal photograph.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

shrudini 1년 전 1

Looks nice.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

Alex Kous 1년 전 1

Can’t wait

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

Carol Steinbrecher 1년 전 1

Awesome... Yes, "This is how the Boeing 797 will look."

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

s2v8377 1년 전 0

Boeing would have been better off updating the 767/757s with new wings, avionics, and engines and calling it a day. Cheaper and they'd probably already have them on the market. Great going wasting your time Boeing developing the 747-8, 737 MAX 9, and 737 MAX 10.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

PB Bissonnette 1년 전 1

its not quite that simple. they are too old, systems need redesign, needs new lighter materials which require new engineering. Add up all this and you have to build new to achieve the opex savings which are expected.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

s2v8377 1년 전 1

Yeah, it is that simple. If it wasn't we wouldn't have the 737NG and 737MAX programs, or the 747-400 and 747-8.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

FedExCargoPilot 1년 전 1

s2v8377 I totally agree.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

FedExCargoPilot 1년 전 -8

Airbus won

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

Edward Bardes 1년 전 3

Lufthansa is looking for a plane that can fly further than the A321LR, which they expect the 797 to fulfill.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

FedExCargoPilot 1년 전 1

Isn't that what the A330 NEO is supposed to do? What Airbus doesn't have is a long range narrowbody that can do the job. 757 reborn? Very surprised that a widebody was chosen, but maybe the image is deceiving. It looks like the 787-3 that nobody wanted to buy earlier...

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

FedExCargoPilot 1년 전 1

Looking at it again, it actually does not look too bad...not like a 787-3

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

Cansojr 1년 전 1

I have seen this before...Hmmm,I wonder?

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

Leon Kay 1년 전 0

It appears that two engine passenger aircraft is the way to go, especially after the success of the Airbus A350.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

Andre Williams 1년 전 -4

What the hell are you babbling about? The current A350 is a “ME TOO” clone of the 787. The original A350 was a failure. Airbus never does anything first, they alway wait and copy Boeing.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

Matt West 1년 전 2

Airbus was the first company to utilize Fly-By-Wire in commercial aircraft.

https://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/jets/fly-by-wire-fact-versus-science-fiction.

They were also the first to develop the twin-engine wide-bodied aircraft, the A300, which "holds the distinction of being the world's first twin-engined widebody airliner"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A300

So, your statement that all they do is copy is completely incorrect.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

Andre Williams 1년 전 -3

Not talking about fly by wire dipshit. I’m talking about the style and form. Name one aircraft airbus has done recently that wasn’t me too clone of something Boeing has done.

A330 was a 767 me too
A320 was a 737 me too
A380 was a me too pissing contest failure at replacing the 747
Original A350 was a half assed me too attempt at trying to kill off the 787
A350XWB was a blatant me too clone of the 787

So again Boeing leads, Airbus follows, they never go out on a limb first they just wait for Boeing to come out with something, watch to see the issues they run into and then just copy all of the positives. They are a less sleazy version of China, but they copy just as much.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

honza nl 1년 전 2

767 was a A300 me too
727 was a DH121 me too
737 Max 8 was a A320Neo me too
737 Max 10 was a A321Neo me too
KC-46 was a A330MRTT me too
797 is a A321LR me too

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

Edward Bardes 1년 전 1

I tend to get a "snobs versus slobs" vibe from the rivalry between Airbus and Boeing.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

Bobby Wilber 1년 전 0

Ditto on that Erik. Somebody needs a refresher course in basic English.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

garritt 1년 전 1

who cares bobby

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

Ric Wernicke 1년 전 0

It's a different day. The aluminium skinned heavy planes of the last century are no longer desired b
y the operators and passengers of today. New planes need to be lighter, fly higher, go faster, and use less fuel. The need and desire for air transportation in Asia is exploding and their needs are for a mid-market aircraft that can operate in the space between the 73's and the heavies. More and more people are ignoring the hub and spoke system in favor of a point to point route map.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

paul gilpin 1년 전 -1

this only confirms boring's purchase of aurora was to suppress the technology and not to employ it.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

Colin Seftel 1년 전 -2

I don't see how this wide-body twin aisle aircraft (797) will be able to compete with the much lower fuel costs of a narrow-body single aisle plane (A321). Can anyone explain?

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Report

Alan Dahl 1년 전 1

One wood assume that the ovoid fuselage shape should mostly negate the extra fuel burn of the wider cabin or they would not have gone with a twin-asile design.

응답 ↓•퍼머링크•Parent•Report

로그인