777 crash at san Francisco airport

[BUTCH1]

really cool picture. 737 looks so small next to the 747 and 777

They all serve a different purpose though, it would be a waste to fly a 777 or 747 on smaller domestic routes, that's why the 737 was/is such a popular plane.

 

[evident]

They all serve a different purpose though, it would be a waste to fly a 777 or 747 on smaller domestic routes, that's why the 737 was/is such a popular plane.

of course. it was bewildering to me one time a few years back i actually flew an ANA 747 on a small domestic route in japan. it must have been a last minute plane change since every other seat was empty.
the new 737-800's on united's fleet are pretty comfortable, but i hate the direct tv and would rather just have free IFE.

 

[Dari]

They all serve a different purpose though, it would be a waste to fly a 777 or 747 on smaller domestic routes, that's why the 737 was/is such a popular plane.

What's the story behind the numbering? Why is the 747, probably the biggest of the bunch, numbered smaller than the 777?

 

[Crusty]

What's the story behind the numbering? Why is the 747, probably the biggest of the bunch, numbered smaller than the 777?

Is this a serious question?

 

[Dari]

Is this a serious question?

Yes it is. It's something I've always wondered. The 787 is not the largest plane of the group...

 

[tynopik]

Yes it is. It's something I've always wondered. The 787 is not the largest plane of the group...

they're numbered chronologically not by size

707 - 1957
727 - 1963
737 - 1967
747 - 1969
757/767 - 1982/1981 (were designed together)
777 - 1994
787 - 2009

 

[rh71]

Is this a serious question?

why wouldn't it be? I'm guessing the smaller ones have come more recently. I know next to nothing about planes/aviation.

They should've left room for classes of size in the naming convention like they do with cars. 3,5,7 series or C,E,S-class.

Why is everything starting with 7xx or have there been 5xx,6xx at some point in history?

 

[bradly1101]

What happens after 797? 7107?

 

[Ns1]

why wouldn't it be? I'm guessing the smaller ones have come more recently. I know next to nothing about planes/aviation.

and you would guess wrong. so very, very wrong.

 

[TangoJuliet]

and you would guess wrong. so very, very wrong.

Well, the 717 is newer....

 

[tynopik]

What happens after 797? 7107?

probably either the 8x8 series or the 27x7 series

or they just drop numbers and go to names

 

[tynopik]

Well, the 717 is newer....

it is derived from the DC-9 which dates back to 1965

 

[TangoJuliet]

it is derived from the DC-9 which dates back to 1965

You don't say? 😉

 

[Dari]

After realizing how big that plane is, I'm surprised more people did not die. It's easy to be angry at the pilots but, given their situation, we should all be thankful that things are not as bad as they could've been. Then again, a big plane can probably absorb more of the energy from a hard/bad landing whereas a smaller plane would've just exploded or worse on impact...

 

[coxmaster]

They should've left room for classes of size in the naming convention like they do with cars. 3,5,7 series or C,E,S-class.

Why is everything starting with 7xx or have there been 5xx,6xx at some point in history?

There really isn't any need for them to do that with airplanes.. It isn't like Boeing is cranking out a new model every 4 years.. Plus BMW and Mercedes have used the same model names (numbers) for multiple generations.. There just aren't enough aircraft to really need that.


And yes, there has been a 5xx and 6xx, Boeing used the following scheme:

1xx:Helicopters
2xx: Pre WWII Airplans
3xx: WWII Airplanes and early passenger aircraft
4xx: Early jet bombers
5xx: Turbine designation
6xx: Missles
7xx: Large commercial aircraft
8xx: Unused as of yet
9xx: Experimental and other

 

[BUTCH1]

it is derived from the DC-9 which dates back to 1965

You would think that the rear-engine configuration would be more efficient than the under-wing nacelle design, clean wing surface, lighter wings due to not having to support the engines. Tell you what though if your sitting in the tail it's kinda loud back there. I guess the manufacturers are making planes similar so the "type-rating" is the same for all models, that would eliminate the expense of having pilots cross-trained and certified for different planes.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

You would think that the rear-engine configuration would be more efficient than the under-wing nacelle design, clean wing surface, lighter wings due to not having to support the engines. Tell you what though if your sitting in the tail it's kinda loud back there. I guess the manufacturers are making planes similar so the "type-rating" is the same for all models, that would eliminate the expense of having pilots cross-trained and certified for different planes.

I have a GED in aeronautical engineering from X-Plane, but I think it has to do with center of gravity (engines heavy, better to put them more or less under the center of lift) and how the fuel lines are run (from the fuel tanks in the wings to the engines also in the wings, so - not far. Less fuel lines = fewer leaks).

Having them far apart would also make it less likely that a single foreign object strike would take out multiple engines.

That's just my WAG though. I await the flames from the smart people. *ducks and covers*

 

[LTC8K6]

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/2/7/0/1317072.jpg

737 vs 747 size.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

You would think that the rear-engine configuration would be more efficient than the under-wing nacelle design, clean wing surface, lighter wings due to not having to support the engines. Tell you what though if your sitting in the tail it's kinda loud back there. I guess the manufacturers are making planes similar so the "type-rating" is the same for all models, that would eliminate the expense of having pilots cross-trained and certified for different planes.

Commercial airplanes have existed for decades.

There are reasons that planes are made in this way, but I really don't feel like reciting all the reasons.

 

[KillerCharlie]

You would think that the rear-engine configuration would be more efficient than the under-wing nacelle design, clean wing surface, lighter wings due to not having to support the engines. Tell you what though if your sitting in the tail it's kinda loud back there. I guess the manufacturers are making planes similar so the "type-rating" is the same for all models, that would eliminate the expense of having pilots cross-trained and certified for different planes.

Wing-mounted engines provide load relief - their weight acts in the opposite direction of lift... not that it matters because the lift on the wings is orders of magnitude larger than the weight of the engine. The aerodynamics of a wing lower surface are quite forgiving since the pressure changes across it are much lower than the upper surface.

Aft-mounted engines cause a bunch of other configuration changes that are inefficient, such as T-tails. Structurally, where would you rather hang a big weight - on a beefed up wing, or on the back of a fuselage that bears much less load?

 

[coxmaster]

You would think that the rear-engine configuration would be more efficient than the under-wing nacelle design, clean wing surface, lighter wings due to not having to support the engines. Tell you what though if your sitting in the tail it's kinda loud back there. I guess the manufacturers are making planes similar so the "type-rating" is the same for all models, that would eliminate the expense of having pilots cross-trained and certified for different planes.

Charlie got it covered pretty much.. A lot of it has to do with weight distribution. It isn't so much about having the weight of the engines directly under the lift, but more of the moment created by the distance.

Having the engine weight directly underneath your lifting surface significantly increases stability and reduces the plane's natural desire to pitch upward. Of course they design around this in EVERY aircraft, but it definitely helps a ton in this case

 

[who?]

The MD80 series aka the DC9 Super 80 is derived from the DC9.

 

[evident]

thanks for asking that question. i always wondered what the deal was with the numbering as well. does the same apply for the airbus planes? it the A319/A320 is the smallest, A380 is biggest, and the new A350 is somewhere inbetween, competing with the 787 so they are sort of numbering according to size.

 

[LTC8K6]

"The Boeing 717 is a twin-engine, single-aisle jet airliner, developed for the 100-seat market. The airliner was designed and marketed by McDonnell Douglas as the MD-95, a third-generation derivative of the DC-9."

Wiki

 

[Number1]

Charlie got it covered pretty much.. A lot of it has to do with weight distribution. It isn't so much about having the weight of the engines directly under the lift, but more of the moment created by the distance.

Having the engine weight directly underneath your lifting surface significantly increases stability and reduces the plane's natural desire to pitch upward. Of course they design around this in EVERY aircraft, but it definitely helps a ton in this case

There is also a safety issue. In the event of an uncontained engine failure, it is safer to have a disintegrating engine located as far away as possible from the body of the aircraft.

Case in point