Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Engineers Vs Marketers  
User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1648 posts, RR: 10
Posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1420 times:

The engineers at Boeing are superlative-no doubt about it.But I can't say the same thing for the Marketers.They are the guys that dictate what gets built.First they suggest a "transonic" cruiser-then after a huge raspberry (and a huge amount of work by the designers) they go back to the 767 replacement.And what a replacement!It just blows Airbus away with technology they can't match.Airbus replies lamely that Boeing got the size wrong.Airbus only had one trick in their bag.They (BA) traditionally build higher lift (and slower) wings that require the engines to less work.Its not a better philosophy, just different (look at the 777-300 power to lift ratio for comparison).So Airbus HAD to go bigger it was the only way they could match Boeings figures for the 787.
Then a strange thing happened.The airlines wanted bigger.Boeing countered by saying "actually we are 9 abreast (737 configuration on a 10 hour flight-wait for the first deep vein thrombosis).Even then Quantas said no we want the range as it was-enter the HGW version.But no what everyone really wants is the 787-10 or 10x version-now that's a 777-200er! Now look what they have had to do.They have upsized the wing once already,strengthened the much lengthened fuselage creating a weight issue (a la A340-600),moved from a double bogey to a (new) triple bogey undercarriage,oh yes and we need to "refan" the engines as we now need 80-85,000 lbs of thrust) now the last time I looked it wasn't the fan that gave the power it was the core-that drives the (larger) fan-are we talking Trent 1000 or Trent 900 here? This is nearly a new plane!
The engineers must be tearing their hair out! Come on guys do your research first-then give the miracle workers a proper brief.
PS Wait for the A350-1000 somewhere between the 777-200 and 300.After all the A340-600 is as good as gone

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineOkie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3154 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1396 times:

Quoting Parapente (Thread starter):
The engineers must be tearing their hair out! Come on guys do your research first-then give the miracle workers a proper brief.

Those are called "Opportunities"

While not involved with aircraft, I have been involved with many a project that constantly changes scope and design before it is shelved or a freeze is put on the final design.
Some of those marketing meetings get pretty interesting.
Many things change between the concept and the time a design freeze takes place. That is just the nature of the engineering business. There are always things that transfer from a project that gets shelved that ends up on another project or find that a particular aspect is a dead end street. Sometimes you just have to really work hard to figure how to get 10 pounds of %&*# in a 5 pound container.

Okie


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9708 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1366 times:

Fist off, for someone from the UK, your English isn't very good and hard to understand. Always put two spaces after a period and use proper sentences if you can.

Quoting Parapente (Thread starter):
The engineers must be tearing their hair out! Come on guys do your research first-then give the miracle workers a proper brief.

It doesn't really work that way necessarily. Engineers don't work magic. Often times they work to provide specifications for new products, but it is part of the job. You work to get the new design specifications. I have never worked in new product design, but projects get cancelled all the time. Yes engineers put a lot of pride into their work and seeing a product that you worked on succeed for the first time gives a really good feeling. However not everything works. Thing of the losses that Boeing faced when they lost the Joint Strike Fighter contract. It is just a fact of the business.

But one thing to remember is that engineers are paid to do their job regardless of whether the final product suceeds or fails. And engineers are paid pretty well too. I have worked for a contractor that wins and losses contracts. The 787 was a huge win for the company whereas there are other contracts that aren't as big. But regardless of whether the contracts are won or not, there is a lot of design work to produce a proposal. It is a very competitive market. It isn't only Airbus and Boeing that go after each other.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1363 times:

The info I have seen on the 787-10 is it has the same MTOW, same gear, and same wings as the 789. Yes the engines are more thrust but less than originally expected. There were a number of posts on A.net that the increase in empty weight was so very low for this stretch. I suspect that if the MTOW was not changed, the same engines could be used but the performance in hot & high takeoffs could be weak.

Based on the way Boeing acted I don't think the design was for a "plane too far", but more a turf battle between the 787 and 777 groups. Now the engineers can be designing both stretches together so the part that works on the -9 also works on the -10.

I suspect the vast majority of the "hair pulling" is getting the -8 fully put to bed. Lots of really exciting things like getting wires routed thru the tight spaces, antenna mounts, changed dimensions on equipment, snags getting the all electric systems finished, routing of galley plumbing, etc.

Also, the eternal hair pulling of every new plane and derivative - getting weight out.

The marketers at Boeing have in the past lost their way pretty often. How many different planes and derivatives were stillborn in the last 20 years. Airbus became complacent because Boeing wouldn't commit (and probably should not have committed on many of the stillborn). It would be shocking for any company to face a competator commiting to the 737-900ER, 737-700ER, 747-8I, 747-8F, 777F, 787-3, 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 all in a few short years.


User currently offline787engineer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 572 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1286 times:

Quoting Parapente (Thread starter):
.First they suggest a "transonic" cruiser-then after a huge raspberry (and a huge amount of work by the designers) they go back to the 767 replacement.And what a replacement!

I see this is your first post so. . .Welcome! (to the biggest AvB war on the web  Smile). Well this "trans-sonic" cruiser you speak of wasn't a total waste of time/work by the designers. An enormous amount of research and new technologies developed on the Sonic Cruiser were put to good use on the 787.

Quoting Parapente (Thread starter):
Now look what they have had to do.They have upsized the wing once already,strengthened the much lengthened fuselage creating a weight issue (a la A340-600),moved from a double bogey to a (new) triple bogey undercarriage,oh yes and we need to "refan" the engines as we now need 80-85,000 lbs of thrust) now the last time I looked it wasn't the fan that gave the power it was the core-that drives the (larger) fan-are we talking Trent 1000 or Trent 900 here? This is nearly a new plane!

Yes it has an upsized/modified wing, but so do the other models, its not so different that it will require a ton of redesign. What weight issue? Double to Triple bogey? I'd like to know where you got this info. I haven't heard anything confirming or dismissing whether the 787-10 will have a triple bogey. There's also no "weight issue" on the -10 now. Yes the -8 base model is a little overweight but that's certainly not due to the -10. The 787-10 will actually require much less strengthening than what was put in the A346. Composites are a lot more rigid and easier to adjust to the extra length/bending moment. The fans actually provide a significant amount of thrust. The bypass ratio on the GE90 was around 9:1, which is huge. A larger fans produces a significant increase in thrust with only a minor increase in fuel consumption. So to recap: modified wing, new engines (not that big of a deal; they will be attached in the same way), and longer fuselage. Not exactly a new plane. There's no more difference between the -8 and -10 as there is between the A346 and A343.

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 3):
I suspect the vast majority of the "hair pulling" is getting the -8 fully put to bed. Lots of really exciting things like getting wires routed thru the tight spaces, antenna mounts, changed dimensions on equipment, snags getting the all electric systems finished, routing of galley plumbing, etc.

 checkmark 

Absolutely, getting everything approved, checked, and out the door on time and at the target weight is causing the most concern.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9708 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1262 times:

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 3):
I suspect the vast majority of the "hair pulling" is getting the -8 fully put to bed. Lots of really exciting things like getting wires routed thru the tight spaces, antenna mounts, changed dimensions on equipment, snags getting the all electric systems finished, routing of galley plumbing, etc.

I spent a bit of time working on the managing some of the electrical wiring for the 787. The cables that have to carry the up to one megawatt of power produced by the electrical generators are like none other. I know that caused a whole lot of problems in the testing phase because there was 80 feet of cable that just would not bend very well. The electric systems on the 787 are incredible.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1648 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1187 times:

Thank you for your constructive replies.Like most people here my knowledge is very limited.(I am only cleared to fly Cessna and Piper Cherokees!).I found the insite into the wiring issues on the 787 really interesting-had not thought through/appreciated the enormity of the task.However I am sad that prior to a plane even being built the majority of Airlines are squeezing in 9 across at 17 ins-its cruel really.If airlines really want a 777-200er (which is what they are suggesting why not re-engine it with A380 engines.They both have been bench tested to 95000 lbs without problems.I am not suggesting that this is an "easy job" but at least the plane was designed in every way to handle the passenger /range from the outset-rather than trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot!

User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9708 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1178 times:

Quoting Parapente (Reply 6):
I found the insite into the wiring issues on the 787 really interesting-had not thought through/appreciated the enormity of the task.

I worked on simulating the wiring setup for the 787 main and aux gen systems. The wiring had to carry some very high loads quite a long distance to the different parts. It was a huge difficulty to design a testing setup for those because we couldn't use any conductors since the carbon fiber composites are insultors so we had to fabricate systems out of a type of fiberglass. There is no common ground and it made things more challenging and things were made even worse since the parameters for the design kept changing since it was a fluid design process.

I know that is one small thing in a huge plane, but using new components in one way can really affect other things on an airplane that you would never expect. That is the way engineering works though. Small things that you would never expect to be a problem can cause some huge headaches. Of course the two biggest headache causers are when deadlines are pushed up, or specifications change late in the design process. Those can cause some late nights at work in order to get everything done.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1729 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1155 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 7):
know that is one small thing in a huge plane, but using new components in one way can really affect other things on an airplane that you would never expect

So true.

Integration is one of biggest engineering challanges. Not only do all the systems have to get along with each other, its all got to fit. The battle for real estate within the airframe can get brutal and even worse, sometimes different systems end up designed to occupy the same space.

This is where I tip my hat to the OEMs. They may blunder about at what seems to be a glacieral pace, but putting together a whole plane is an amazing accomplishment.

Tod


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pilots Pay Vs Engineers Pay posted Sat Nov 6 2004 13:08:14 by NORTHSEATIGER
Thomson Airways Vs Britannia Airways posted Sun May 10 2009 15:15:29 by 777Heaven
747C Vs. 747M posted Sat May 9 2009 09:20:18 by AFKL
VS LHR-DEL A346 Changing To A343? posted Fri May 8 2009 03:48:52 by Deaphen
9W Codeshare With VS posted Wed May 6 2009 04:46:45 by Rajrs
ATR 72 Vs. Fokker 100: Fuselage Width posted Sun May 3 2009 20:56:05 by Brenintw
Bagagge Allowance: Piece System VS Weight System posted Thu Apr 23 2009 06:37:28 by PA101
JetBlue Pricing War Vs. VX $14 Fares posted Thu Apr 2 2009 07:12:13 by Enilria
Hel With AA/VS Regs Please posted Wed Apr 1 2009 13:52:41 by CodyKDiamond
What Reg Is Doing VS 11/12 posted Tue Mar 31 2009 08:46:03 by A340Crew
BA Fined $135m, VS $100m By NIgeria! posted Thu Nov 17 2011 10:01:24 by sevenheavy
For UA/CO Is EWR A Plus/minus Vs JFK? posted Fri Nov 11 2011 20:58:52 by VC10er
VS A333 G-VINE Lease To Ryan International? posted Wed Nov 9 2011 14:31:30 by sevenheavy
LHR, BD, VS And BA. What Next? posted Tue Nov 8 2011 02:48:24 by mikey72
VS Announces YVR posted Sun Nov 6 2011 09:24:48 by YVRSpeedBird
Recognition Of Pilot Bravery - Iran Air Vs LOT posted Sun Nov 6 2011 06:15:52 by qantas747flyer
Total Sales - 747 Vs 777 posted Thu Nov 3 2011 10:51:06 by OldAeroGuy
What Will Happen To The VS/CO Mileage Partnership? posted Fri Oct 28 2011 19:30:43 by airbazar
BA Ad Agency Allegedly Used VS B744 In New Ad! posted Tue Sep 27 2011 14:57:15 by sevenheavy