Yep looks like current airliners? In July when the Comet had been rolled out and was conducting ground testing, only 10 months after the same rollout for the B47, a civilian airliner was a much more demanding design project. And the other US manufacturers? In the early s , Vickers had begun design on a six abreast seating V model with turbofan Conway engines.
21st Century Markets
Yes they were 1st and second for MVP award. The A is my choice.
- Second Time Around;
- The Clouds Still Hang: The Complete Trilogy.
- Looking for other ways to read this?.
- [email protected]: Invent like a Startup, Invest like a Grownup;
- Cell Tales - Volume 7;
- The Morning After: A History of Emergency Contraception in the United States (Critical Issues in Health and Medicine).
Not because of its FBW, but because the overall configuration is unchanged since 30 years and represents the by far most successful aircraft configuration ever conceived. Newer types such as the MS, C and C-Series are very similar in dimensions and overall layout, despite being 35 years younger. The config was already found in the B to some extent by accident, Boeing did consider rear-mounted engines and fully exploited in the Dassault Mercure but with the wrong engines.
The A represents the final evolution, and to this day we have difficulties finding anything that is substantially better. The Mercure had the same engine as the first series , the JT8D and first flight was only around 4 years after the s. They marked the beginning of the jet age. KC and were essentially a joint civil-military program.
Martin: I disagree. Super DC-4 basically. And 3 engines with all 3 rear mounted was a dead end. After that came the and A which were ground breaking in their own fields. It looks that you forgot some: B 1st 4-engined pressurized before the 2nd war CV first short range pressurized and the 1st. And also the russians: Tu, Tu, Il Hi Scott, it might be a bid hair-splitting, but in technical terms the first fly-by-wire commercial aircraft was the Concorde.
I somehow think the was quite an enormous milestone, even when maybe not so much revolutionary. But it was the first dual engine single aisle jet with the current, dominant configuration. Uwe one can make this argument, since Douglas had a sales license agreement with Sud to sell the Caravelle in the US. You missed the Boeing entirely, the airplane that shrank the world.
Download PDF The Revolution And the Cost of Doing Business FULL FREE - video dailymotion
The B was the first long-range passenger jet that opened up a HUGE number of city-pair markets worldwide to non-stop jet service, which greatly stimulated the air travel market and paved the way for larger airplanes such as the , DC, L and A to follow. Every time I do a list, I seem to leave something out. Of course the was revolutionary and should also be in the poll. I left off DC-8 because it followed the I know you stated you would get some dissenters about the and I am one of them but its not for the composites.
For me one of the big leaps that I fell will have long lasting impact remains to be seen is the fact that the does not use bleed air and instead uses batteries. The composites alone would make it revolutionary dribs and drabs before but the combination of elective and composition is truly cementing its revolutionary nature. The fact that the mix of composites and costs is still in play is not relevant.
Or that the A went bleed air. Composites are the future as is all electric. A whole new industry was launched in both areas I have a lot of experience in how they reached the distributional systems on electrics and nothign like it has ever been seen on an aircraft and only in piece in the electrical industry. And it all works. At sales the is a revolutionary success.
At an estimated sales long term its a huge success. He is more into the end where does it work for an airlines and rightly so. Understand, I was way to brief in my explanation but was exactly based on your more detailed response, basically its an all electric vs bleed air, had its shares of teething pain but I believe we will see more of that in the future. Moving dampers, valves etc is now all electric.
I retrofit old system using a transducer to pneumatic s as I have the air there daydream and its vastly easier and lower cost devices — but a separate air system when electric is there during construction is now a dead item. The A is a throw back as Airbus was not close to ready. Next bird will be all electric I think. Then this electrical energy is converted through transformers again to DC voltage with the respective loses to be delivered to motor controllers which convert it again with loses and finally it reach the motor.
Now the motor itself convert this electrical energy back into mechanical to rotate a compressor which compress the air with the respective loses. Did someone count how many energy loses we gain so far? I really doubt B bleed system efficiency is superior in any way apart from being much less reliable as involves many additional components and much heavier in comparison to conventional one. For the A , a composite centre wing box and as well the FULL inc cabin bulkhead empennage was composite. Thats not dribs and drabs the composite horizontal surface is close to the size of an A wing.
Dribs and Drabs :That would be the A composite fin box , the A composite tail and A keel beams The AM had a composite wing and it flew ahead of the Duke: The A was dribs and drabs. Instead of going all in they chickened out. We can see the price they are paying for same o same o and a little incremental. A is a military aircraft as I recall not sure, seems to come and go so its NOT on the list. The scrap materiel must be enormous, which is why others are moving to recyclable thermoset carbon composites.
The Curtis CW pressurised twin engine airliner flew in Mar , better known as the military C46 Commando which had the pressurisation removed. Its unique feature , now common, was the double bubble fuselage construction with the floor beam joining the 2 and the wing structure passing completely under the floor The Boeing Stratoliner , which was 4 engined and pressurised first flew in Dec 31 With the DC4 features put all together, I would say it pips the Constellation. The real pressurised prototype the DC-4E was a bit earlier again. And I goofed on the name.
I should have written Stratoliner not Stratocruiser. The Constellation had all the features of a modern aircraft and was all but a true Jet in design. Trans Ocean fast high speed. How come earlier you rubbished the turbo compound radials, of which the Super Constellation had 4. Each engine had 3 turbines one for each group of 6 cyls, used as an unusual power recovery to the crankshaft rather than forced induction , 2 superchargers. Even the very last Model A Starliner wasnt as fast as the same era Bristol Britannia turboprop , let alone the jets.
So even the early was the first glimmerings that have lead to the future. I am not sure I would not put it ahead of the A I think a point is missed here, that is the so called early adapters while advanced Boeing were not the Leap pun intended. The same with the Comet, it was first, but it was badly done first on two levels structure and pax numbers. The was the Comet done right. The was revolu8t9ionayr in its CRFP and its far more electric approach 1.
A not because of FBW, but because of the move to flight restriction and ushering in the modern era of automation. So there is a co-revolution involved. It clearly set the space for single aisle that its ruled or co-ruled for 40 years more? The C Series. That takes all the Leaps and using a GTF brought the entire revolution do0wn to a level never seen before.
To be truly revolution it also has to be highly successful. Those have been or in the case of the C series, going to be. Rarely mentioned. Focke Wulf that did that flight had most of the cabin filled with fuel tanks, while a remarkable plane, it wasnt really its production version. Others went piggy back to make the distance. Having the cabin full of fuel tanks doesnt make it much use as an airliner. A more normal route testing was the earlier Berlin to Cairo via Salonika in Jun Which was still an achievement.
The flight from Berlin Staaken took 24hr and 36 min, while the return flight just under 20 hr. The same plane 15 weeks later did Berlin to Tokyo , but not non stop.
- Pontifications: Which airplanes are revolutionary or evolutionary?!
- Un toc di pan - Score?
- When The Vow Breaks?
- Requiring of Care.
The three polls are thought provoking. Some at BA were thinking that the replacement for the had to be a big, big leap like maybe to a blended wing aircraft. Concorde belongs in the revolutionary list.
Democratic prospects in Imperial Russia: The revolution of 1905 and the political stock market
Nothing like it since. It might be extinct now, but SSTs will come back eventually. Environmental issues will dog any SST. I think the term revolutionary should be more strictly defined. If it was the revolution of Airtravel, both the and the DC-8 would qualify, think of the super sixties. If we define it at a technical level, the was an evolution from the B and the KC, and a part of its success was due to the fact that they could learn from the Comet.
I would also define the revolutionary charachter of the as: First passenger widebody, first to have containerized cargo, first to have inertial navigation, fist to have quadruple redundant systems. On the commercial side: The Super 60s started the revolution to make airtravel affordable — the continued that trend. Size in itself was not revolutionary, think of the C5A. Klaus: I think revolutionary has 3 possible aspect.
Sales success, tech success and slot opening or in a new arena. The Arena is a tough call, arguably long distance travel was done by the flying boats first and all the rest are evolutionary.