No matter how much I love the 707 when the fuck will USAF, and by extension NATO, will move on from a 50s airframe?
No matter how much I love the 707 when the fuck will USAF, and by extension NATO, will move on from a 50s airframe?
Wrong second picture.
When the west finally unfucks itself and make actually good weapons again. It truly is embarrassing that shitholes like India and China can make weapons roughly equal to the West's. Let that sink in for a moment. The most utterly useless irrelevant retarded mantels in the planet can make weapons almost as good as ours and out-produce us.
In the past no one could compete with Western weaponry. Now it's a stalemate because governments are too busy with wasting money on irrelevant shit rather than military and science.
When it no longer does the job they need it to do cheaper than a new airframe.
Operating cost exponentially increases with age of the plane. I kinda doubt it remains more cost effective than replacing them, especially if you could sell the old ones to Pakistan, Turkey or some similar allied shithole.
No need, airframes don't have a service life while engines and avionics are updated once in awhile.
When the airframes start to die as in total overhaul required then they can put out a tender for replacements but realistically that is still probably 20+ years away.
I don't doubt the durability of the airframe itself but for how long can they remain competent against intended adversaries, and not camelfuckers, solely by ugrades and haven't these upgrades already caught up with the cost of simply making a new blank sheet design with brand new electronics?
What competent adversaries?
The thing is large airframes haven't really changed much in the last 50 years. We are just starting to see new materials being used but even then the efficiency gain is tiny compared to just re-engining,
As for threats all these craft are intended to be used in controlled airspace so they have no need to be stealthy or air-to-air capable.
Basically they do their job fine and could do it maybe 10% better if replaced at the cost of billions.
That statement is so wrong I don't even know where to begin.
Do you even know what airplanes are made from?
That's right, Aluminium. Do you know what's one of the main characteristics of Aluminium? That's right, again: It's fatigue strength is 0.
Do you know what that means?
NO YOU FUCKING IMBECILE! Airframes have a very clear set and calculatable service life. They will eventually fail, and without regularly inspecting the airframe for cracks (and replacing the panels that cracked) your plane will fall out of the sky sooner or later.
Maintenance intervals are constantly being adjusted and shifted around. People with a keen eye literally look over every inch of the airframe looking for cracks in the frame, measuring their length (because there are ALWAYS cracks in an airframe. You can't avoid it), and decide if it is critical and needs immediate replacement, or consider it to to be small enough that the plane can go for another few flights before replacing the part. All of this is based on testing and experience. Airbus literally didn't finish testing the fatigue strength of the A380 beofre rolling it out to customers. They had to increase the speed of their testing facility (which is a giant hydraulic system that simulates takeoff, flight and landing forces on the plane over and over again), just to make sure they got ANY numbers to present to the maintenance staff.
Are you pretending to be retarded? Because your shit sounds retarded.
1:1 REPLACING ALUMINIUM WITH FIBER REINFORCED PLASTICS DOESN'T WORK. The fibers will crack and delaminate all over, because fiber reinforced plastics can't take stress from non-fiber-aligned directions.
Simply replacing a part with an identically shaped part made from "black metal" (if that is even possible, because many shapes can't be made out of fiber reinforced plastics) will NOT work. The new parts will break before takeoff. Some parts literally can't be replaced and have and thus planes have an absolute maximum flight hours or max number of takeoffs/landings without a major overhaul.
To use new materials (read: fiber reinforced plastics, which are about as new as the neolithic age, when humans figured out that attaching rocks to sticks using sinew and amber works really well) you have to completely redesign the parts, which leads to you having to redesign all the attachments between the parts, the dimensions of the plane and WHOOPSIEDOO! You got a new fucking plane that has nothing to do with the original, and you literally have to recalculate everything.
"Re-engining" is also utterly retarded. Taking out an old engine and replacing it with a lighter one means that the decrease in lift stress on the wing base due to gravity is vastly reduced.
This is literally Aerospaceengineering 101. The placement of the engines on the wings is carefully calculated. You can't just change their weight without accepting a massive effort.
Using "more efficient" engines means drastically increasing the cost, because the engines are undoubtedly some of the most expensive parts.A slightly more efficient enginesalso cost a fuckton more money, just so you know. Turbine R&D is ridiculously expensive, because to build one prototype you have to manufacture thousands of engine blades. cont.
And to increase "efficiency" you have to increase the temperature at which you burn the fuel, which means you have to either use more heat resistant materials (we are already at the very top edge of viable (aka: light enough to fly, yet cheap enough to not bankrupt even lockheeb) materials, and we are using literally the most expensive methods to form the blades, because not using those is a '60s thing that gives you '60s performance), or add more complex cooling (we are literally laser carving cooling tracks for super compressed air into each individual engine blade, which increases the cost of each blade by a factor of x2. Guess what: the most expensive group of parts of your new prototype engine just got two times more expensive so you could push a few drops of fuel out of it without it blowing up into everyone's faces and wasting a couple millions of $$$ on what is now a whole lot of scrapmetal and a ruined test site). If your airframe is going to give up in the next 10 years anyways, why waste all that money on new engines?
Using engines that produce more thrust per liter of fuel also means that you have to redo the autopilot, or accept that an Ariane 5 may happen to your shit. On top of that, you have to redo all calculations of all parts, rethinking if they can actually bear the new maximum thrust, new maximum drag, new maximum alpha and on top of that: the lifetime of the frame is drastically reduced, because now the maximum force on the frame is increased, which fucks up the Aluminium even more. More maintenance-> more cost.
You could just get a new plane, but guess what: Airbus' production lines are booked out until the end of time. A quote from their website:
Even if you WANTED to get a new fucking plane, it wouldn't be there for the next ten to twenty years, because it would take a few years to design a new one/design necessary modifications AND THEN another ten years or so (because orders are piling on while you are still designing) until it can actually be built, unless you force Airbus to build new sites, which will cause a massive international bullshit fest, where every fucking country wants a piece of the cake and you end up with tons more time wasted and at the end of it your plane is obsolete by the time it first takes off and AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARG
Ctrl-f "backlog", faggot.
I needed this.
Airframes are the only part of an aircraft that can't go "hours X" ie. time before mandatory replacement. Sure they have to be grounded eventually when they are no longer worth replacing but unlike engines they don't have to be rebuilt after a set hours of flight.
When did I sugest it would work? I was talking about designing a new airframe from scratch with composite materials like the A350 or 797.
Or reduce drag, or reduce empty weight…
You have made some very long posts ranting without ever understanding what I was saying in the first place.
When will they move on from 10s, 20s and 30s guns?
That's just wrong. Airframes are made from Aluminium. See my first post. Aluminium doesn't last forever. It WILL break down eventually, and the airframe is no magical exception.
I was more venting steam and preventing anyone from suggesting "Just rebuild it with modern materials!!!!!!!!!!11". I am sorry if I hurt your feefees Australia-kun.
I was talking about the engines. You can't build more efficient engines without spending tonns of money.
Reducing drag means changing the entire airframe (or significant parts of it), which is another one of the "donts" you learn in Aerospace 101. Not because it's particularly expensive or super hard to do, but because the shape of the aircraft dictates of a lot of the inner functioning, like how fuel lines, pneumatics, hydraulics, cables, electronics, sensors, maintenance accesses etc are placed inside. Change the airframe and you have to change everything on the inside too, which fucks with the center of gravity, and thus requires you to do even more changes. Planes aren't built like cars, where you have lots of room and you can just shift the position of a part without much change.
Reducing empty weight is about the same as taking out the seats and replacing them with light ones, or removing one of the toilets. You can't really do too much before you have to shave away at the structural elements or redundant systems.
Once again you misunderstand me, unlike many components it doesn't a replacement schedule set by the manufacturer that is enforced by law in the developed world. This doesn't mean it will last forever it just means their service life isn't set in stone.
That is why you would just buy them from a supplier rather than design them yourself, the GE9X is a great example of the private sector doing all the expensive RnD and offering the result to anyone that can pay.
Once again I was talking about switching to a new airframe rather than modifying current ones.
When I said:
I was talking about the range / loiter gains that could be had by adopting a new airframe while pointing out it's so fucking expensive you want to fly the current fleet as long as possible.
I also think 10% is reasonable with composites and high by-pass turbofans.
I-I'll never be able to repay you for your contribution ITT…
I knew these were selling like hot buns but dayum…
Most parts don't. They get inspected and replaced as necessary. This is only possible, because most aircraft already spend a lot of time in maintenance halls. Getting some low/medium salary guy to check the coffee maker and fuel pumps while the high pay guys spend hours just making sure the wings won't fall off the plane.
Also: producing safe life parts is not only more expensive (because you need higher quality manufacturing to ensure that this part that never gets replaced and/inspected can't fail and doesn't affect performance with loose tolerances), but because the engineering behind them is a lot more complex and invariably requires greater mass and higher performance materials.
The supplier has to do the R&D, and make money. New engines are always expensive and even a small increase in performance causes a massive increase in cost.
And designing/manufacturing a completely new plane is a lot more expensive than using an old one until it falls apart. The new 777 with the GEX9 was a massive investment for Boeing, but they expect to sell a couple hundred of those, maybe a few thousands. It's an investment, which they intend to get their money back. If you were to make a company re-engineer their airframes for new engines just so that you could fly your tiny fleet of tankers, AWACS and MEDEVAC planes for a little longer you, being the only customer who wants old planes but better, would have to pay for all of that re-engineering.
Don't get me wrong. Getting a new airplane is the best option. I agree 100% with you. But there are so many issues with the modern aerospace industry, that it seems unlikely that we are going to get a new large general purpose military loiter plane in less than 20 to 30 years.
Also the new 777 wings were a testbed for new technologies. You can't fuck up your cashcow, or your company goes down the drain. So you experiment with a less important design and get some knowhow and experience. Boeing learned a lot from that program.
They are the cashcow of modern aerospace. The A320 and 737 are what keeps airbus and Boeing alive right now. The A380 was a massive financial loss for Airbus, and continues to be. Extreme R&D costs and expensive new facilities coupled with few buyers taking limited numbers…you get the idea.
The 747 was a very successful design, but with the A380 being the "new biggest plane" out there, Airbus pushed Boeing off the pedestal as the only company producing big fat planes. The A380 was a propaganda jig. A good one. It's a damned good plane, it's just not making any money.
Yes, that is why swapping engines is the type of upgrade that might only happen once or twice in a 50 year+ service life. This is why I said "once in awhile" here
That is why I said "they do their job fine" and "replaced at the cost of billions" here
You are echoing my own points as if you are arguing against me.
also I would never suggest designing a tanker / AWACS from scratch as 90% of the work is already done by refitting an airliner
>(((Moving on))) from a masterfully designed airframe that is aerodynamically and structurally capable in favour of what exactly?
Gott im Himmel Hans, wtf are you even talking about? Decreaasing the wing loading and improving the thrust does not adversely effect the aerodynamics of an aircraft.
But then again you guys built hugely over engineered massive capacity Daimler Benz engines instead of improving aspiration and fuel octane so wtf would you know?
In their defense they didn't have enough fuel to go refining it more than the bare minimum.
The E3 is a beautifully loud aircraft, I was happy to hear that they finally got most of the fleet upgraded to a Windows XP based environment instead of the 1970s proprietary system.
Lift creates a force that pulls the wings or the lift generating surfaces upwards. Not the entire plane. The wings have to be sturdy enough to not shear off when the plane takes off.
To reduce the torque at the base of the wing, which is one the most critical places of the entire aircraft, you move the engines from the central fuselage towards the wing tips. This means that the weight of the engines pulls the wings down and cancels out some of the torque. This allows you to use a thinner and less expensive structure at the base of the wings, at least when the plane is in the air. When it is on the ground you get the opposite effect. See the B52 for a good example. It's wing base is built in such a way that it can easily withstand the lift generated by it's massive wings, but it has to use tiny wing wheels to prevent the wings from bending too far down under the weight of the engines/ wing-payload when the plane is on the ground. It is also a nice example for why slapping new engines on an old airframe doesn't quite work as smoothly as you would expect. A lot of effort went into making sure nothing goes wrong with that upgrade program, and it cost a whole load of money too.
Using lighter engines reduces this effect. While a slightly lesser amount of lift is now necessary to lift the plane into the air, there is still a considerable amount of torque applied at the base of the wings, but now it doesn't get canceled out as much and you create more stress on the base of the wings, which is already a difficult to engineer place.
This is also the reason why aircraft fuel tanks are drained from the innermost tanks to the outermost tanks. You want to keep as much weight as possible in the tips of the wings during flight to reduce torque at the base of the wings.
Wanna bet that the 747-8 will rape the A380 in the market? The original jumbo jet is a by far more iconic plane and it's much more graceful than the fat French bastard.
When the density of air changes so 747 can no longer be flown.
The only reason they didnt put a radar dish on a B52 is because their engines were only built to last a few months before midlife refit, if a wwii airplane was built to better standards it would be in service today.
Just because the plane was designed in the 50s doesn't mean every airframe manufactured in the 50s.
It doesn't have to. The A380 was a massive financial loss. I said that already.
The 747 is simply Boeing's attempt to produce a new version to boost their marketing. It will sell like butter in the 'States, because replacing old 747s with new ones that share most of the maintenance facilities is a smart idea.
What I meant is that now Airbus is seen as the guys who build big-ass super-modern planes planes. So if you want to be seen as the big and successful airline you got to have an A380 to impress your customers. That's why Emirates bought so fucking many of them. More than 100 IIRC. Grand total A380s sold: built: 220 or so. Roughly half of all A380s currently in service were bought by emirates.
As I said, it was a massive propaganda mission.
Airframe life isn't the issue here. B707 might had been way ahead of its era but I kinda doubt it was 60 years ahead, though I kinda get why it can hardly be replaced for military duty since the most recent 4 engine all-American design was the B 747.