KEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6225 times:
Boeing is telling the world 7E7 cockpit will be (nearly) compatible with the 777. The 777 is very comparable to the Airbus cockpit, minor differences.
So one may conclude the 7E7 & A330 will have comparable cockpits.
Biggest improvements in efficiency will have to come from the engines. No engine manufacturer will be allowed (by its share holders) to sign contracts preventing them to supply Airbus which surpassed Boeing recently in aircraft deliveries. So both 330 and 7E7 will fly the same engines.
Seat capacity & range are of the same magitude. City pairs stretching further then say 6700 mile will be few & low frequency. So probably no huge advantages of one over the other there.
Airbus will most likely develop an improved A330 if there is reason for that (big advantages in technology, Customer demand. A380's will be operational long before, so no manhour restrains.
As Boeing stated the 7E7 new tail & noise "will have no negatively influence on performance". New wings & materials will not provide a quantum leap in efficiency. Composites didn't take over during the last 20 yrs ... probably no huge improvements here.
Look at yesterdays airlines commenting on the 7E7, Cathay & Lufthansa, no surprise that both are looking for aircraft in this category, not for long haul.
My Conclusions :
* Boeing will have a tough time fighting itself back into the market that will be dominated by A330 variants by 2010.
* The short/medium haul 7E7 seems to have the better market potential. Airbus has no good solutions in the 200-300 short range market yet.
Next step in the A vs B arena will probably be a Airbus reaction to the short / medium haul 7E7.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8062 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6082 times:
A couple of comments:
1. The long-range variants of the Boeing 7E7 will have a range likely over 7,000 nautical miles. That makes it possible to fly routes as far as SFO-HKG, LAX-SYD and LHR-SIN easily. I think a number of European charter airlines are definitely interested in getting the long-range 7E7, especially in the TUI Group. And unlike the A330-200, the 7E7 will have a much higher economic cruise speed (at least Mach 0.85, potentially as high as Mach 0.89), which makes for better compatibility with long-range ATC and also reduces flight times on very long routes.
2. The medium-range 7E7 could become a hot seller, especially since many airlines that fly the 767, A310 and A300B4 planes are now looking for a replacement and frankly, the A330-200 is just too big and heavy a plane for high-density medium-range routes. This is why I think Airbus may be working on a plane with the A300B4-600 fuselage but with an all-new wing that is lighter, structurally stronger and sports better aerodynamics; however, it will be after 2009 when Airbus could get this plane into production, notably due to the fact BAE Systems (who designs the Airbus wings) are currently tied up in A380 wing development.
3. The prospect of a large-scale sale to the USAF may also help launch the 7E7 project. Once the 100 767-200-based air-refuelling tankers for the USAF are built, I think Boeing would like to close the 767 production line and replace it with the 7E7 production line, which means an air-refuelling tanker based on the 7E7 short-fuselage version could become the plane that finally consigns the rapidly-aging KC-135 fleet to retirement by 2020.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5887 times:
If I'm not mistaken the 777 cockpit has more in common with the 747-400 than the A330. Putting a brand new engine type on an aircraft (A330) is easier said than done. If Airbus does go this route I wonder if anyone will accuse them of trying to rehash older product lines?
Manzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5872 times:
Biggest improvements in efficiency will have to come from the engines.
Regarding these engine efficiency gains....
Whilst all the aero engine manufacturers will be working hard at improving engine efficiency, it's debatable whether the biggest improvements will come from the engines alone. IMHO it will have to be a combination of engine and airframe improvements.
No engine manufacturer will be allowed (by its share holders) to sign contracts preventing them to supply Airbus which surpassed Boeing recently in aircraft deliveries. So both 330 and 7E7 will fly the same engines.
Hmmm... I think you are mixing up engines and engine technology. We the engine manufacturers, along with our shareholders want to sell as many engines to as many people as we can. To do this, we enter into deep and protracted discussions with the customer (both airframer and airline) about the types of mission profiles they have in mind and design an engine to meet these requirements. The shareholders don't give a hoot who we sell to.
The reason you won't see the same engines on Airbus and Boeing aircraft is that they are designed specifically with each aircraft's mission profile in mind. Therefore the engine for the 7E7 will NOT be appearing on any revised A330. What you might get (if Airbus produces an updated A330) is an engine which utilises some of the technological advances pioneered on the 7E7 engine. This engine in turn will introduce even newer technological advancements and so it will in turn be more advanced than that on the 7E7.
Hope this helps clear things up!
Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
Dw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1266 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5690 times:
Regarding engines, keep in mind that the 7E7 will likely use engines that don't provide bleed air to operate aircraft systems. This requires an alternate power source for a large number of aircraft systems. While it would be possible for Airbus to incorporate the bleedless engines onto the A330, it would mean major redesign, and the resulting aircraft would probably not be optimized like the 7E7.
Keep in mind that structure of the 7E7 will be much lighter than that of the A330, meaning it will have a number of benefits over the Airbus product. By having an optimized short range and long range derivative, the 7E7 can have a common family that doesn't suffer from the penalties imposed by using heavy A330s (or 777s for that matter) on hops of 2000 miles or less.
The 7E7 definitely doesn't guarantee domination over Airbus in its market segment, but saying that Airbus can just hang new engines on the A330 and compete on level ground is a gross oversimplification.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2759 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5566 times:
"The 777 is very comparable to the Airbus cockpit, minor differences.
So one may conclude the 7E7 & A330 will have comparable cockpits."
I beg your pardon? Yes, they are both FBW, but that's about as far as the similarities go. Boeing and Airbus have an entirely different cockpit architecture and layout. Even their flight computer operations/architecture is different (i.e., the FBW systems operate differently). The 777 is much closer to the 747-400 than any Airbus.
"Biggest improvements in efficiency will have to come from the engines."
A significant chunk of fuel-efficiency will come from the engines, yes. However, the 7E7 will also be significantly lighter than the A330-200 for a given mission, which means the engines will not produce the thrust required for the A330. They will also be tailored to fit the 7E7 flight parameters (hence the reason engine selection has been pushed back with the announcement of the 7E7SR). In addition, as already mentioned, the engines will probably be bleed-less. This means no current airframe (Boeing or Airbus) will receive these engines without substantial modifications.
"So both 330 and 7E7 will fly the same engines."
Absolutely not. (See above). Its entirely possible Airbus will attempt to improve the A330 and the engine manufacturers will try to adopt some 7E7 advances into new engines, but that's it.
"City pairs stretching further then say 6700 mile will be few & low frequency."
Says who? Remember, the A330-200 killed the 767-400ER because it is a much more capable aircraft. The same applies here.
"Composites didn't take over during the last 20 yrs ... probably no huge improvements here."
. . . so Airbus is building the A380 with 20% composites because a fairy told them to?
Motech722 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 211 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5379 times:
There was a great article in AW&ST this week about the 7E7. It definitely sounds like Boeing will be going forward on this project which is good news. KEESJE, I like your speculation that "Boeing will have a tough time fighting itself back into the market that will be dominated by A330 variants by 2010." This might be true, but since Boeing is launching two variants at the same time, then if the A330-competitor lags in sales, hopefully the short/medium haul 7E7 can flourish.
To help strengthen this argument, Cathay Pacific's VP-Technical said that while the likelihood of Cathay Pacific launching Boeing's 7E7 is low, the 3,500-nautical-mile, short-range version could be attractive to Cathay Pacific when the program is launched in 2008.
The 767 is one of the aircraft that most potential customers, including Asians, intend the 7E7 to replace, along with the A300/A310 and A330-200. Boeing foresees sales of 2,500 aircraft over the next 20 years, including 1,000 each in the basic and long-range versions and 500 in the short-range/domestic version.
It would be interesting to see if Airbus would bring out an updated model of the A330 to compete with the 7E7, but with the 50% of the 7E7's airframe being slated to be constructed out of composites, it seems that Airbus might have to design an entirely new aircraft to compete. In addition, while engine efficiency is important, Boeing has said that it is looking for 15-20% overall improvement in operating costs for the 7E7, about half of it in the engines; meaning that a streamlined airframe and use of composites will also add to the efficiency too.
This program will be fun to watch over the next few years. While Airbus has bet on the jumbo markets, Boeing is betting on a different market. I'm going to guess they will each be successful in their respective choices. I wish both manufacturers good luck.
Wingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2379 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5287 times:
Don't forget also that the 330 and 340 lines are one and the same. If Airbus updates the 330 to take bleedless engines then it will also have to do the same for the 340 or face a sunstantial increase in production costs by suddenly having two "different" airframes where it once had only one. I agree with the experts and analysts that simply hanging these new engines on the existing 330 platform will not be so easy or so cheap.
Danny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3517 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5135 times:
KEESJE - some guys here already know that 7E7 will be the best aircraft ever built with fantastic characteristics even though.... Engineers working on 7E7 are still not sure what the characteristics will be like
Is sounds like it is going to be good aircraft but.. We'll wait - we'll see.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2478 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5014 times:
Keesje, I agree with nearly all the points fielded here, except for yours. I respect your posts in general but it appears you may be too trusting of Airbus's public statements on the 7E7. They are using the same clever ruse Boeing tried when it pooh-poohed the A380's supposed advantages over its' stillborn 747X. It didn't wash then and it doesn't now. The older (and in this case, inherently heavier) design has its' work cut out trying to match a newer, more technologically advanced design. Surely, Airbus doesn't believe this; it's just normal, competitive practice to naysay any potential advantages the 7E7 may have over the A330. There's as of yet, no real proof the 7E7 will have any advantage, however, there's little liklihood that it won't, given the aggressive design goals. You had an agenda here but it seems to be based mostly on the line Airbus has given out, rather than on your own instincts. Common sense says Airbus will likely have to design a new airplane to truly compete, as Boeing would if it really wanted to go against the A380. See?
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6519 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4884 times:
Quotes in the news from two of 40 airline representatives meeting in Seattle for a two-day conference that ended Thursday to discuss final details for the 7E7.
"This airplane, I believe, will be a superb machine for operating with the airlines in terms of its economy," said Peter Gardner, a vice president of Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific Airways. "To match it, the competition is really going to have to stretch out."
"You get a bit of a wow factor when you walk through the door," said Gardner. "It will give you a completely different feel."
Nico Buchholz, a senior vice president of Lufthansa, was more subdued. He said the initial 7E7 configuration that Boeing presented was "reasonably far from any Lufthansa requirement."
"There are still some open decisions which Boeing needs to take on before I say it's great, or, no, I don't like it."
The feedback caused Boeing to make changes. "The aircraft from our perspective has developed positively," Buchholz said. "We still have some way to go."
Lufthansa, for example, would like Boeing to replace its traditional steering column with a side-stick controller, standard in Airbus jets.
While Buchholz confirmed Lufthansa wanted a side-stick controller, Gardner insisted with jovial vehemence that, in the end, "it won't be a side-stick."
"It's something we've weighed," said John Feren, vice president in charge of customers for the 7E7 program. "We actually do have a pretty cool side-stick we've developed. We just didn't think this was the time to do it."
"The customer gets to decide," said Feren. "If everybody tells us they aren't going to buy it unless we (install a side-stick), you might get a different answer out of Boeing."
"Anything's possible, but I think we've got the configuration that seems to play for a broad group of customers," Feren said.
"No one has come up to me and offered me a check saying, `I want to be the first one,' but that wasn't the plan" for this meeting, Feren said. "We're keen to get out in the marketplace to make offers."
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
BoingGoingGone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4608 times:
The EMBRAER 170 test campaign was completed with very good results in terms of performance, comfort and reliability. The innovative electronic flight control system (fly-by-wire), with software developed by Honeywell, had its architecture and functionalities approved in extensive flight and ground tests. However, recent discussions between Embraer, Honeywell, CTA, FAA and European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) representatives established a mutual understanding that the flight control system software certification documentation shall be supplemented, before definitive type certification is granted in the first quarter 2004.
Sounds like bureaucratic bullshot to me, not a problem with the system. Primus Epic is the most advanced avionics package out there. It even improves upon what's onboard the 777.
Sllevin From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4481 times:
Remember that this is a game of lots of little tiny differences.
The A330, for example, is more efficient that the 767. It's more than just the wider fuselage. It's a decade of advances.
And now the 7E7, aside from the bleedless engines, will have some 15 years on the A330. It will have lots of little "edges" on performance that will be very difficult for Airbus to match.
Specifically, one area of weakness will be the wing. While it was, and is, a brilliant move to have the 330 and 340 share the same wing, logic tells us that everything is a compromise, and the shared wing is going to give up some tiny increment of performance that will not be recoverable without an entirely new wing.
In the airline world, just the little 1, 1.5 percent is a big deal.
MITaero From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 497 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4437 times:
I agree with the above posts that contend that airframe improvements will indeed help efficiency greatly. Composites will lower weight, and by simple physics this will increase overall aircraft efficiency. Of course, the engines will be beneficial as well; however, any similar a/c with the 7E7 engines "slapped on" won't compete with its overall efficiency.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4289 times:
While Airbus has bet on the jumbo markets, Boeing is betting on a different market .
Boeing is betting on the long haul point to point market. It let to a kind of earthquake in Seattle to see Airbus (betting on A380, hub-hub) was eating up this point to point market with the A330-200. This let to the birth of the Sonic cruiser and now the 7E7.
Comparing the 330 vs 767 and saying it will be the same for 7e7 vs 330 is unrealistic IMO. Unlike the 767 Airbus 330 will still have the right size & range when the 7e7 arrives. The 7e7 design proves it ...
Over the last two years you can see Boeing engineers are step by step forced by the airlines from a fast ultra long range design into a short/medium haul efficient people mover.
I think thats were Boeing will sell most 7E7´s. The market is much bigger then long haul & airlines indicated another fancy looking Boeing 330 is second priority. And it´s coming through in Chicago now.
I expect no quantum leap efficiency improvement from composites. Certification, damage controle, inspection & price are still not superior to the newest aluminium alloys. Composites are still used mainly in secondary structures (interiors, fairings etc.)
As for the engines, I think the "bleedless" engine is a lot of PR. Less bleed air ok. But airco, flaps, engines starting etc without bleed air ... I question the advantages over the disadvantages for the alternatives ..
As for the engine-wing combination leading to enormous unmatched advantages ... I have seen no concrete indications for this, nor can I imagine them ..
I think the 7e7 will be launched soon and a lot of them will be sold, however Boeing is using propaganda to, it is wise to keep the feet on the ground listening to them.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16940 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4172 times:
The short range 7E7 will also have the advantage of a shorter wing, making it better suited for tight congested airports. Aircraft with long wing spans like the A330 can take up anywhere from 2-3 aircraft parking positions at a terminal, the short range 7E7 would not be much more of a burden than say an 757 or A300.