Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/945605/

Topic: New Design Vs Old: You Sick Of This Topic Too?
Username: Boeing nut
Posted 2002-10-16 00:45:56 and read 2095 times.

Are some of you out there as sick as I am hearing about the new design vs old design "discussions" out there? This issue has raised it's head again with the Easyjet jet order for the A32X series. If you cut to the chase, the only modern thing about the A32X series compared to the 73X is the rollout date. This also applies to other airliners.

Here's what I mean. Compare the A32X and a 73XNG starting with the cockpit. The cockpit of the 73X actually has more modern cockpit than the A320. But the A32X has fly-by-wire. Sure, fly-by-wire is great technology, but it is not new. The F-16 is fly-by-wire, but it first flew in 1974. Almost 30 years old. Next, compare the wings. Again, the 73XNG is a more modern design. Fuselage: here, the A32X is a more modern design. But in either case, it's just a shell, no need for changes, nore has there been.

This applies to other models as well.

777 & A345/6 - A345/6 has more modern wing, 777 more modern all new design.

A33X & 76X - A33X more modern new design. 764 more modern cockpit.

My main point here is that poeple are making comparisons of aircraft relative to thier introduction date. Not making comparisons to the most modern versions. The first flight of the A320 was in 1987. 15 years old in this industry is not exactly young.

Airlines want the most modern, and cost effective offering that the manufacturers have to offer. They are not nearly as interested as when the type first took to the air. Easyjet's decision on thier new aircraft was based on cost effectiveness, not the "most modern".

Now this part of my post has become a bit of a cliche' recently, but it is true. I love Airbus aircraft too. The A345 is quickly becoming a "top five" favorite airliner of mine. I also like the A320 series. So don't think that I am "anti-Airbus, because I'm not even close to it. It just irks me when people say that the A32X is "more modern" than the 73XNG, when it really is not. Newer all new design, yes. More modern, no.

(now bracing for replies........)  Big grin

Topic: RE: New Design Vs Old: You Sick Of This Topic Too?
Username: Staffan
Posted 2002-10-16 01:08:06 and read 2070 times.

Older designs doesn't mean bad, but everything moves forward, and to stay in competition one has to come up with new ideas, new technology and new designs, that's just how it works.

Staffan

Topic: RE: New Design Vs Old: You Sick Of This Topic Too?
Username: Boeing nut
Posted 2002-10-16 01:11:28 and read 2064 times.

I agree.

With the 737NG, winglets = new ideas, new cockpit = new technology, new wings = new designs.

Topic: RE: New Design Vs Old: You Sick Of This Topic Too?
Username: Staffan
Posted 2002-10-16 01:21:42 and read 2069 times.

Yes, but it's still a 737. They have been around for ages...

To be successful you have to strive to be able to offer something none of your competitors offer. And with the 737 and A320 so similar, it's not enough to have a plane as good as the other, you have to be better.

Look at the car industry, car manufacturers are stopping production of best-selling models in favor for newer ones, not only improved ones, but completely redesigned cars. Even though they were perfectly good and would have served their purpose for many years to come, the production is stopped in favor for new ones.

Staffan

Topic: RE: New Design Vs Old: You Sick Of This Topic Too?
Username: AA737-823
Posted 2002-10-16 01:34:42 and read 2039 times.

Not to mention... when Boeing went in to redesign the 737 (and came up with the NG) the airlines that they talked to specifically did NOT want fly-by-wire. Read that in "Modern Boeing Airliners," published 2000, and available at the Smithsonian. I don't have it at college with me, or I would give you the author.

I have flown all three generations of the 737, as well as the A320. I don't think any of us will argue that the redesigned 737 wing leaves the A320 flying (as Boeing points out) lower, slower, and shorter. Engies? Well, I have heard that the 73NG is more efficient than the A320, but I don't really have anything to back up that person's statement. And honestly- how can you make a CFM56 more efficient than it is? I know there are ways, hence the NG has different engines than the second gen- I just don't understand how that works... Point is, I wouldn't think that the 73G's CFM's would be much different than the CFM's on an A32X.

From a passenger standpoint, I like both of them. A lot of it has to do with how the airline configures their planes... American has handrails on their 738 overheads, while Continental does not. Conti has LCD flip downs, while AA has CRT's mounted above the aisle.

One is more modern in some ways, the other wins in other ways. Who cares? Airlines don't. They care about the bottom line. Does the technology of the A320 mean it carries lower costs than the 737? EasyJet thinks so. Or at least they got such a sweet deal that operating costs are outweighed.

Randy

Topic: RE: New Design Vs Old: You Sick Of This Topic Too?
Username: Aamd11
Posted 2002-10-16 01:55:51 and read 2031 times.

True, older designs seem to be dragging on, with the 737 heading for over 35 years since its first flight back in god knows what year.
Its an old design, a fuselage cross section the same as the 707!

One could argue however, older is better.
its a tried and tested design, and it works, has done for a long long time now.

Personally, i think Boeing ought to move away from 707 fuselage, make them all circular like the 777, its apparantly stronger etc etc.
Old designs are tried and tested, but lets move on into the 21st century.
We are far more experienced in this field these days, so lets put out knowledge to good use and thrive to make more efficeient airliners.


A^A MD-11

Topic: RE: New Design Vs Old: You Sick Of This Topic Too?
Username: Exnonrev
Posted 2002-10-16 04:07:13 and read 2003 times.

Newer isn't necessarily stronger. Back when the first and second generation jets were designed, engineers didn't have the computer models and years of operational experience to go by. They had pencils, slide rules, and computers with less processing power than a $2.00 calculator. Those a/c were simply overengineered to extremes that no computer then or now could anticipate.

I've said this on the forum many times. I don't see any 100,000 hour 777s or 100,000 cycle A319s still hauling pax thirty years from now.

Topic: RE: New Design Vs Old: You Sick Of This Topic Too?
Username: BWIA 772
Posted 2002-10-16 04:33:17 and read 1992 times.

I think that aviation would have been a little more fun if there was a thrid aircraft manufacture in the game.

In terms of the single ailse aircraft their is serious competition and the 320 family does not have the same legacy of the 737 due to the fact it only came on the seen in 15 years.

However if Boeing were to change up it whole fleet of jet aircrafts offering the same commonaility as Airbus that the competition would be more.

Topic: RE: New Design Vs Old: You Sick Of This Topic Too?
Username: Boeing nut
Posted 2002-10-16 17:21:25 and read 1939 times.

I am pleasantly surprised that this discussion has taken the path that it has. It's nice to see discussions instead of arguments when it comes to an "A vs B" discussion.

Exnonrev,

You have a good point about the old design, in that older designs didn't have the luxury of todays technology. I.E. CADS. Over engineering back then led to less efficient designs that are scene today. I don't think anyone will disagree that Boeing's line, with the exception of the 777, needs an overhaul. But they work and work well. The future at Boeing will indeed be interesting.

Topic: RE: New Design Vs Old: You Sick Of This Topic Too?
Username: Keesje
Posted 2002-10-16 17:55:17 and read 1916 times.

I like Boeing Aircraft very much, however recently I've seen Boeing denying the snowbal until it hits them in the face. I taste that here too.

Saying the 737 cockpit :

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Abbott


matches the A320 series cockpit

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Haskell


probably because there are also digital systems & screens in it
is an example of unwillingness to accept some realities.

E.g that A320's are digital to the bone instead of some digital systems being added to the analogue ones.

Or the fact Airbusses are just a generation further then 737NG where it comes to the use of new materials, production techniques, hydraulics and avionics (faults detection, maintenance logging, etc) and flight control.

I urge Boeing engineers and execs to invest one day in sitting in an Airbus cockpit & studying performance.

Then talk to some customers they lost to Airbus recently.

Saying it is all European govt support is the Easy way out ....

More painful observations could be product & process quality & true customer focus...

Topic: RE: New Design Vs Old: You Sick Of This Topic Too?
Username: Boeing nut
Posted 2002-10-16 23:38:32 and read 1856 times.

Keesje,

E.g that A320's are digital to the bone instead of some digital systems being added to the analog ones.

If you look at the large view of the A230 cockpit pic you will quickly find anolog gages. Also, Airbus is not that far ahead of Boeing in new materials, production techniques, etc. Boeing is utilizing newer aluminum alloys, avionics, (which also fault detect and provide maintenance info) etc. As far as flight control goes, not all pilots are keen on the Airbus flight control system. In some cases, the pilot is not the "final authority" in the cockpit. Even some people from Lufthansa will tell you that.

Topic: RE: New Design Vs Old: You Sick Of This Topic Too?
Username: Staffan
Posted 2002-10-16 23:59:33 and read 1840 times.

"In some cases, the pilot is not the "final authority" in the cockpit."

I've seen many examples of aircraft that have crashed because of pilot error, but very few caused by bad decisions from the computer.

Staffan

Topic: RE: New Design Vs Old: You Sick Of This Topic Too?
Username: Boeing nut
Posted 2002-10-17 00:32:34 and read 1818 times.

True, but the ones caused by bad decisions from the computer have been Airbus aircraft.

Topic: Boeing Nut
Username: Klaus
Posted 2002-10-19 03:10:30 and read 1772 times.

Boeing nut: True, but the ones caused by bad decisions from the computer have been Airbus aircraft.

Even if that´s true: Which ones would be the planes (and the lives on board) that were saved by the flight control systems overriding a pilot error?

Too bad we don´t have statistics about that...  Wink/being sarcastic

I would guess the overall balance would be somewhat in favour of the Airbus philosophy.

Topic: RE: New Design Vs Old: You Sick Of This Topic Too?
Username: AvObserver
Posted 2002-10-19 04:01:08 and read 1757 times.

I agree with Boeing nut that new technology isn't always better. Sometimes the tried and true systems are preferred by some operators which is why the 737NG still fares well against the A320. Boeing, however, must keep in mind that many customers prefer new technogy's promised, if not yet proven, benefits. To regain lost market share, the corporation must start to move away from their derivative philosophy, regardless of its' real world merits, and resume advancing the state of art in more airplane designs. The proposed 35% lower DOC airplane using some Sonic Cruiser technologies or the less-likely Sonic Cruiser itself are examples of what Boeing must do to regain leadership, or even parity, in commercial aircraft. The shelved 747X, for all of its' individual merits, could not compete head-on with the A380. Most airlines seem to want new technology because it promises lower costs in the long run. Boeing had better jump on the bandwagon before it's too late.

Topic: RE: New Design Vs Old: You Sick Of This Topic Too?
Username: Backfire
Posted 2002-10-19 09:42:47 and read 1720 times.

Imagine this:

You buy a broom. You use it for several years. The brushes wear down, so you buy a new head for the broom and keep on sweeping.

A few years later you decide the handle needs replacing as well. So you put a new handle on the broom and away you go again.

Question -- are you using a new broom or an old one? How far does something have to change to become "new"?


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/