Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420...- Part 2!  
User currently offlineGilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3002 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 7723 times:

I hope I dont get in trouble as I am not a moderator, but have started a 2nd thread for this subject.

The old one had over 300 responses!!!

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...eneral_aviation/read.main/3051135/

I will post my comments once I have finished reading all 300+ in the other thread! Only 200 more to go!

[Edited 2006-10-22 23:19:23]

98 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 7688 times:

THANK YOU  bouncy  fillllllller more filler and still more filler

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30565 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 7675 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Carried over from the other thread and quoting Cfalk:

Quote:
Considering that the initial sale at heavy discounts has only been 159 units over the past 6 years (and virtually none in the past 2 or 3 years), I would be worried if Boeing were building it.

62 strikes me as a bit more then "virtually none".

Quote:
But since Airbus does not need to repay the EU loan if the A380 is not profitable by 2018, I fully expect Airbus to make sure that they are just not profitable enough, default on the loan, and find themselves with a nice windfall. The bill goes to the EU taxpayers.

While the EU may very well decide to postpone or forgive RLA repayments if the A380 program proves a bust, until they do so, Airbus is under obligation to repay that aid per the schedule.

[Edited 2006-10-22 23:56:49]

User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 7660 times:

Quoting Gilesdavies (Thread starter):
I hope I dont get in trouble as I am not a moderator, but have started a 2nd thread for this subject.

The old one had over 300 responses!!!

I gave him his chance, Lad -- good show.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 7626 times:

Joni from your post on the first thread:

Quote:
Good point - let's limit "aerospace" to "aircraft".

Why... both are weight sensitive industries. Satellite launches even more so than commercial aircraft. If satellites are using composites for weight over welding Al-Li what makes you think Al-Li could possibly perform better from a weight perspective? Al-Li is better than Al sure, but not as lightweight as composites. If you have more specific information on what the make up of the composite Boeing is using I'll be happy to find out weights needed for various loadings.

Quote:
How many B787-10s are there on order? I had the impression the program wasn't yet launched, but I haven't been following the situation very closely so I may be wrong.

The 787-10 isn't even available to be ordered yet. So it's not surprising there are no orders for it. I can say the same thing about the 389 but that would be kind of stupid.

Quote:
pulling data from the Wikipaedia [sic] 787 page and Airbus

So you're comparing an unofficial and unaudited source to an official one?!? You know better than that  Wink Wiki is handy, but I would never rely on it to settle a debate  Wink

Dynkrisolo:

If you have some specific numbers so we can validate the %s it's great. But you have cited any sources for the veracity of those numbers is something that can't be determined or even inferred based upon their sources.

Stitch:

Quote:
While the EU may very well decide to postpone or forgive RLA repayments if the A380 program proves a bust, until they do so, they're under obligation to repay that aid per the schedule.

I don't think the EU can do that under their current laws. I think Airbus is pretty much SOL. Now that's not to say they can't be lent more money on a 17 year basis to payback the current loans LOL. But at some point it will have to stop. If the EU doesn't it will be very interesting to see what happens with the WTO etal.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 7620 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Carried over from the other thread:

Everyone who suggests that the A380 will not make money and diverted resources from Airbus's main business areas is a witch and shall be burned at the stake forthwith.

Even though it is true...  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 7564 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 4):
If satellites are using composites for weight over welding Al-Li what makes you think Al-Li could possibly perform better from a weight perspective? Al-Li is better than Al sure, but not as lightweight as composites. If you have more specific information on what the make up of the composite Boeing is using I'll be happy to find out weights needed for various loadings

Similar but different question: what are the thermal expansion properties of CFRP vs. Al-Li? Does CFRP hold its shape better, and if so does that make it possible to design to tighter tolerances? I need to do some reading...but if true I could see where the structure would be lighter simply because you lessen the allowances for thermal shrink/stretch.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1859 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 7489 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 4):
Dynkrisolo:

If you have some specific numbers so we can validate the %s it's great. But you have cited any sources for the veracity of those numbers is something that can't be determined or even inferred based upon their sources.

I just find it amusing people believe there is an exact number. There isn't. Airbus, Boeing, GE, and Rolls all have their nominal marketing figures. But none of them use a consistent set of rules. Engine companies seldom publish SFC. You can find single operating point value, but it is rather meaningless. This is because an aircraft engine doesn't ever operate at a single point. In addition, Rolls usually quotes cruise SFC, but GE and P&W quote takeoff SFC. Also, just looking at SFC doesn't give you the whole picture. For example, the RB211-524H/T on the 744 is about a couple of percentage point worse in fuel burn than the PW4000 or CF6 powered 744s. The same engine on the 763er is about 5% worse than the PW4000 or CF6 powered 763er. Depending on the stage length, aircraft configuration, airline operating rules, this number can vary.

One important message I have for you all is SFC does not equal to fuel burn. A 1% improvement in SFC does not directly translate to 1% better fuel burn, but there is certainly a strong correlation between the two. You have to take into consideration of the aircraft/engine system.

Without detailed aircraft/engine performance analysis, we can only discuss ballpark figures. Until Boeing, Airbus, GE, and Rolls publish detailed aircraft and engine performance characteristics in the public, then I can discuss with you in details. Unfortunately, none of them do, then I can just discuss the subject at 10,000ft level. In day-to-day operations, airlines see how much fuel is used, not what the SFC an engine has.

Too bad that my simple explanation can't convince some of you. If you want to believe the T1000 is more than 12% better in SFC than T900, please be my guest. If you believe this number, then ask yourself how come the 787 is only burning ~20% less fuel than the 767? Does the engine industry have major technology breaktrhroughs in the past four years? If you can answer these questions to your own satisfaction, then maybe the 12% figure is correct.  Wink


User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 7476 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
Everyone who suggests that the A380 will not make money and diverted resources from Airbus's main business areas is a witch and shall be burned at the stake forthwith.

Sigh. Sad, because it's true. It annoys me that you can't think the aircraft isn't the greatest thing since the Wright Flyer without being accused of bias and/or irrational hatred -- hmm, much like B6 on this board.  Wink



New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 7444 times:

Or DL, or the business case for EK's billion seat expansion, or the reality that LHR/FRA are congested due to too many small planes and not a lack of mammoth jets, etc...

Ooo, a new name! The MammothJet!



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 7435 times:

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 7):
Too bad that my simple explanation can't convince some of you. If you want to believe the T1000 is more than 12% better in SFC than T900, please be my guest. If you believe this number, then ask yourself how come the 787 is only burning ~20% less fuel than the 767? Does the engine industry have major technology breaktrhroughs in the past four years? If you can answer these questions to your own satisfaction, then maybe the 12% figure is correct.

It's not that your simple explanation doesn't convince me. I want hard numbers LOL, so I can make up my own mind, rather than you telling me what to think. That's why I asked for any sources. You cited x% lower burn than y where y is x'% less than z, but I have no idea where you got those numbers from to either side with or against your numbers.

I mean if we're all pulling number out of the air (or our a**es) I'll just go with 42  

[Edited 2006-10-23 02:37:59]


I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1859 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 7370 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 10):
I mean if we're all pulling number out of the air (or our a**es) I'll just go with 42

If I could share the hard numbers with you, I would.

If you think I pull the number out of thin air, then be it.

If you have some basic engineering understanding, then my simple logic shouldn't be too hard to follow.

You should not be just looking for one number. Once again, if you have some basic engineering understanding, you should know this.

One last time, if you don't want to believe my explanation, you don't have to. I have said this too many times.

[Edited 2006-10-23 03:07:10]

User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 7356 times:

Simple math really. But the A-380 cheerleaders will cheer on.


One Nation Under God
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9977 posts, RR: 96
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 7237 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 7):
Too bad that my simple explanation can't convince some of you

Referring to your quote from the previous thread, Dynkrisolo:-

"AFAIK, the 787 engines have no more than 3-4% better fuel burn than the 380 engines"

FWIW GE themselves have said that the SFC difference between the GEnx and GP7000 is 4%. So as far as GE is concerned, YOU are correct  Smile

Obviously this doesn't help an RR engine comparison, but I'd be amazed if it were substantially different.

Airbus have said that the engines for the A350XWB will be 2% better SFC than the GEnx, i.e. 6% better than GP7000.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 10):
I mean if we're all pulling number out of the air (or our a**es) I'll just go with 42

From my seat, that would currently appear to be an obligation on Airliners.net.

Hopefully, GE aren't pulling numbers out of their a**es.......

Regards


User currently offlineSparkingWave From South Korea, joined Jun 2005, 670 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 7220 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
Ooo, a new name! The MammothJet!

Be careful, the mammoth was a big animal that became extinct. Similarly, around here you could end up being flamed out of existence for using that metaphor!

SparkingWave ~~~



Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 7185 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 4):
Why... both are weight sensitive industries.

Because the requirements are different. Shipbuilding is also a weight-sensitive industry.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 4):
The 787-10 isn't even available to be ordered yet. So it's not surprising there are no orders for it. I can say the same thing about the 389 but that would be kind of stupid.

This was exactly my point.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 4):
So you're comparing an unofficial and unaudited source to an official one?!? You know better than that Wink Wiki is handy, but I would never rely on it to settle a debate Wink

If the figures I quotes from Wikipaedia are wrong, feel free to correct them.

WRT comparing the smallest variant B787, I also used the smallest variant A380 and as I noted in the post, the calculation is very rough in any case as the issue of carried pax depend so much on the seating arrangement (you can cram in 9-abreast on a B787, OTOH you can cram in 870 pax in an A380) and fuel costs are only 30% of CASM in any case, even with today's oil prices.

WRT re-engining the A380, the concept is not limited to using B787 engines, but on the contrary if the decision to re-engine is done in 2010, then engines from that time can be used.

(sorry I missed the quotes since the thread was migrated)


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9977 posts, RR: 96
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 7160 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Joni (Reply 15):
Shipbuilding is also a weight-sensitive industry.

Although the armchair experts on a-net would have you believe differently of such a "low-tech" industry, Joni.  boggled 

Regards


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7012 times:

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 7):
Too bad that my simple explanation can't convince some of you. If you want to believe the T1000 is more than 12% better in SFC than T900, please be my guest. If you believe this number, then ask yourself how come the 787 is only burning ~20% less fuel than the 767? Does the engine industry have major technology breaktrhroughs in the past four years? If you can answer these questions to your own satisfaction, then maybe the 12% figure is correct. Wink

Your "new math" leaves something to be desired. If I have 100 cars and sell 50% of them I have 50 left. If I then sell 50% of those, I have 25 cars left which is 25% of 100 while your new math says I have none because you can add percentages. You can't. They are ratios, and are only meaningful if you have the numbers. So show us the numbers.


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1859 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 6917 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 17):
Your "new math" leaves something to be desired. If I have 100 cars and sell 50% of them I have 50 left. If I then sell 50% of those, I have 25 cars left which is 25% of 100 while your new math says I have none because you can add percentages. You can't. They are ratios, and are only meaningful if you have the numbers. So show us the numbers.

Lovely. If you don't understand it, don't pretend to be. I didn't do any adding or subtracting of percentage. You can go back to my original thread a find one place that I added or subtracted percentages. I did later on explained for small percentage numbers, you can add or subtract percentages to get the first-order effect.

Let me use the 787 engine as the base (i.e., 1), then if Widebodyphotog's number is correct, the 380 engine would be 1.136: (1 - 1.136) / 1.136 = -12%. This is achieved with about 4 years of technology difference. If we take Boeing's statement that the 787 will burn 20-25% less fuel, and let's be generous and assume the engine improvement is 20%. Then the 767 engine would have a value of 1.25: (1 - 1.25) / 1.25 = -20%.

Then in about 20 years from the 767 to the 380, the engine only improved 9%: (1.136 - 1.25) / 1.25 = -9%.

AFAIK, the 767 to 787 engine SFC improvement is only slightly more than 15%. Then the 767 would have a value of 1.18: (1 - 1.18)/ 1.18 = -15%.

Then in about 20 years from the 767 to the 380, the engine only improved ~4%: (1.136 - 1.18) / 1.18 = -4%.


In the more optimistic case, it would be 20 years with 9% improvement v 4 years with 12% improvement; or more realistically, it would be 20 years with 4% improvement v 4 years with 12% improvement. There isn't any major engine technology breakthrough in the past 4 years that would allow this kind of dramatic improvement. Therefore, by simple deduction, you know the 12% number can't be correct.

BTW, who has verified that the numbers Widebodyphotog had was authoritative? Just because it sounds right to someone doesn't mean his numbers are correct.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 6903 times:

Dynkrisolo, you're argument is logical but it omits an important point. The B787 is expected to sell several thousand engines, so it is profitable for the manufacturers to invest a lot of money in development and squeeze out the best performance they can. The WhaleJet is expected to sell several hundred engines, so the manufacturers maximize profit by minimizing their development investment and going with a conservative design.

User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 6866 times:

Quoting Dynkrisolo (Reply 18):
There isn't any major engine technology breakthrough in the past 4 years that would allow this kind of dramatic improvement. Therefore, by simple deduction, you know the 12% number can't be correct.



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 19):
Dynkrisolo, you're argument is logical but it omits an important point. The B787 is expected to sell several thousand engines, so it is profitable for the manufacturers to invest a lot of money in development and squeeze out the best performance they can. The WhaleJet is expected to sell several hundred engines, so the manufacturers maximize profit by minimizing their development investment and going with a conservative design.

I agree with Zvezda that your logic, now that I can follow it, basically is based on no technological breakthroughs, which runs counter to Rolls Royce talking about a three-shalf narrowbody engine as well as PW talking about their geared fan.

The other thing you missed is all those older engines were developed with oil at under $25 USD a barrel. The price has been as high as $75 USD this summer and while it is down to about $60, the OPEC is reducing production. That means fuel costs will be 30% to 40% of CASM, making more expensive but more fuel efficient engines very salable.

If you chose to believe that there is no technogical breakthrough possible then so be it. However, both Zvezda and I spent years in Silicon Valley and watched the "impossible" get done on a daily basis.

[Edited 2006-10-23 21:37:59]

User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6836 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 20):

If you chose to believe that there is no technogical breakthrough possible then so be it. However, both Zvezda and I spent years in Silicon Valley and watched the "impossible" get done on a daily basis.

 checkmark ....darn right..I live in Silicon Valley also..and I've seen majour changes even after the dot.com/telecom bust...the speed at which things change (and become obsolete) is just amazing...!

Cheers...



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30565 posts, RR: 84
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6795 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

To be fair, software is not as bound to the laws of physics and jet turbines are.  Wink

User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6753 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
To be fair, software is not as bound to the laws of physics and jet turbines are. Wink

Software? What are you talking about? We are talking chips, ASICs, computers, telecommunications, fiber optics, ADSL. All of those required physics that makes a jet engine look primative, which it is.

"You mean they use REACTIVE engines? Scotty?"
"Aye Captain, they cainy think about gravity engines, they're so backward."
"Then beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life forms down here."


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1859 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6736 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 19):
Dynkrisolo, you're argument is logical but it omits an important point. The B787 is expected to sell several thousand engines, so it is profitable for the manufacturers to invest a lot of money in development and squeeze out the best performance they can. The WhaleJet is expected to sell several hundred engines, so the manufacturers maximize profit by minimizing their development investment and going with a conservative design.

Oh please! But 1,000 A380s would be equivalent to 2,000 787s, in terms of engines sold. If we believe Airbus's forecast of 1,200 aircraft larger than the 747 to be sold in the next 20 years, then your argument isn't really valid.

On a very high level, the engine performance is gained through better cycle design which includes two very basic paramters, namely bypass ratio and overall pressure ratio. The higher the bypass ratio, the better the propulsive efficiency the engine will have. The higher the overall pressure ratio, the better the thermal efficiency the engine will have.

Since you are so fond of Rolls engines, I have collected the following data from RR's site as well as AW&ST 2006 Aerospace Source Book.

RB211-524G:
bypass ratio (BPR): ~5(can't find the number on RR's site, but the T700 is 5, http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aer.../downloads/airlines/trent_700.pdf)
overall pressure ratio (OPR): 32.9 (from AW&ST)
SFC: 0.58

Trent977:
BPR: 8.7-8.5 http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aer...e/downloads/airlines/trent_900.pdf
OPR: 41.1
SFC: 0.52

Trent 1000-D1:
BPR: 10-11 http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil_aer.../downloads/airlines/trent_1000.pdf
OPR: 50
SFC: 0.506

As you can see, the changes in BPR and OPR between the -524 and the T900 are more signficant than the corresponding changes between the T900 and T1000. This is the natural technology progression that I was talking about.

Further, to prove my point using the AW&ST data:

from the 767 to the 787: (0.506 - 0.58) / 0.58 = -13%
from the 380 to the 787: (0.506 - 0.52) / 0.52 = -3%

Anyway, I don't think AW&ST data is completely accurate, but at least it's more reasonable. So, happy now?


25 Jacobin777 : 1)Airbus won't sell 750 A380's...the 748+A380 probably won't sell 1000 frames 2)2000 787's + hundreds (if not over 1000) of A350's (when its launched
26 Ikramerica : Yeah, but it's my favorite extinct animal from that era and all the kids love it! That isn't true for small percentages. We are using approximations
27 Zvezda : Current sales evidence that the VLA market is much smaller than 1200 frames. Airbus has no chance of winning all the sales in that segment. There is
28 Dynkrisolo : I didn't say they will, but please check Airbus's GMF. They have forecasted over 1,200 aircraft larger than the 747, both pax and freighter a/c. That
29 Dynkrisolo : The 380 was launched with the business case built in the late 90s, not what we can see now. I have never said it will sell 1,200 frames. I was merely
30 Poitin : Let's put this in to prespective. I said, They are ratios, and are only meaningful if you have the numbers. I have some cars. I sell 10% of them. The
31 Post contains images RAPCON : What about calling the A380: BRABAZON II
32 Zvezda : The Brabazon was innovative. The only similarities I can see are the use of higher pressure hydraulics, the extreme size, and, of course, the disappo
33 N328KF : Indeed. And Airbus is caught in a Catch-22 (to avoid borrowing Halibut's phrase) here. Either Airbus sucks up most of a slim market, or the market in
34 Post contains images Poitin : didn't say they will, but please check Airbus's GMF. They have forecasted over 1,200 aircraft larger than the 747, both pax and freighter a/c. That's
35 Jacobin777 : ..and has been stated here ad nauseam those numbers won't be met (even remotely)....not to mention, both Boeing and Airbus have stated that the mid-m
36 Post contains images Dynkrisolo : Do you have a crystal ball? I certainly don't. While I think Airbus's number might be high, it's only a gut feel. Gee! The base 388 uses 70k engine,
37 Post contains images Ikramerica : For one thing, I said with small percentages, 5% and under, you can add them when you are approximating. This is true. Further, you apply them to a n
38 Dynkrisolo : Forgot to address this one. The T1000 and GEnx were designed in 2004 before the oil price started their rapid escalation.
39 Post contains links Planemaker : Even with the just announced production reductions the market sent oil prices lower today. Inventories are high and speculation is that several OPEC
40 Post contains images Osiris30 : Thank you very much.. that's all I (at least personally) was asking for
41 Ikramerica : This is because if oil remains at $60 a barrel for any length of time, it encourages new oil technologies and new exploration. And it also allows the
42 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Can't divulge proprietary information... -1000...? Fuggetaboutit...! The -900? Maybe...even then, not too many frames (according to my Crystal Ball).
43 Sllevin : From the people who were off by almost 100% in development costs... ...sales projections! And let's face it...if you can't get the scientific part do
44 RJ111 : Those are two conceivable outcomes, but there's still a wide margin between those two events where the A380 could feasible do well. Boeing aren't jus
45 Osiris30 : Why do you think Boeing has fielded the 748i... just to soak up that little bit of market... no other reason.
46 Post contains images Astuteman : In your opinion, perhaps, but that's all it is. Most of the recently announced financial impacts are due to delay penalties and excess production cos
47 N844AA : I don't run a business, and never have, so let me pose this question as see if one of the more experienced folks on this forum can answer this for me
48 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Whoa! And the much revered Widebodyphotog uses 0.561 in his analyses. What's going on? I agree with your analysis that it's more likely to be 0.52...
49 Bringiton : Boeing wont loose money on the 747-8 . It is a combined 4 billion or near abouts project and they allready have 47 orders to speak off in less then a
50 N328KF : The point being made was that it would even be worth a small margin or no margin to Boeing in order to fuck with Airbus' margins and overall game pla
51 Osiris30 : No. But if they figured they would pick up another $500 million from residual purposes (i.e. keeping customers in the fold) then *maybe*.
52 Post contains images Bringiton : Capitalism at its best
53 Zvezda : No, you haven't. The Trent 900 is low-cost derivative of the 600/800. The main improvement is the contra-rotating high compressor. The fan is also sl
54 Post contains images Astuteman : You seem to infer that the development budget for the T900 was a fraction of that for the T1000. On second thoughts, you don't infer - it's stated as
55 Post contains images Lightsaber : Astuteman, I'm afraid I was the source in an offline discussion. Some is my opinion, and some is old work where the various components were investiga
56 Zvezda : As Lightsaber already mentioned, he was my source for the details of the technical differences. A financial analyst with whom I used to work, now at
57 Post contains images Astuteman : Not to mention a little knowledge.. My thanks, Zvezda. (And Lightsaber). Regards
58 Post contains links NAV20 : I'm sure that improved engine performance per se is not the only, possibly not even the main factor contributing to the 787's greater economy. It's qu
59 Joni : In sum, you read a Boeing news release and concluded the B787 is fantastic? I can't help but have noticed that with regard to Airbus releases your at
60 Bringiton : I read a wiki article where they said that boeing were relying on engines to provide 1/3 of the eff. , composites and light weight materials to provid
61 Post contains images Astuteman : For all the discussion above, and all the development costs thrown at the 787 engines, the SFC difference between them and the current A380 engines i
62 Post contains links Dynkrisolo : You're a stubborn person. No, it was absolutely not a low-cost derivative. Small market? Not according to Rolls. Take a look at their Market Outlook:
63 Stitch : I believe Boeing would prefer to spend those monies on improving the 787 and 777, as they are stronger passenger programs then the 747 is. They can d
64 Zeke : Looking at the 752, RB211-535E was a 40.1k engine, BR of 4.30, OPR of 25.8 TSFC of 0.607, the PW2037 38.25k, BR of 6.00, OPR 27.6, TSFC 0.582. On the
65 Post contains images Lightsaber : Except when game changing technology comes out, its all incremental improvements in gas turbines. But the Trent 1000 is receiving a bunch of it. Now
66 Poitin : I'd say NO math as you did not demomstrate that two 50,000 pound thrust engine cost the same as one 100,000 thust engines and a 75,000 thust engine i
67 Shenzhen : Engine prices are based on thrust. If I buy an airplane with xx.xx (derated) thrust, then a few years down the road, want to increase the thrust for
68 Post contains links SLCPilot : Here's a shameless plug for a poll over in another forum. Be the first to to say you called it way back in 2006. Ultimately, how many A-380s will be p
69 Ikramerica : First, the overall jet is claimed to be 20% more efficient, not the engines. And not 20-25%, 20%, and not the ENGINES, but the whole jet. Also, when
70 Zeke : Does it ? Thanks for the maths lesson. I still dont see the 787 being 20% better than a 330. I dont think the Boeing statement referred to the 330, i
71 Post contains images Zvezda : Guilty as charged. I return the compliment to you. I trust you'll forgive me for taking the word of a friend who's a financial analyst at RR over you
72 Brendows : But there's a difference between the two. The A300 wasn't launched as a long range airliner, while the 783 is based on a long range airliner, and tha
73 Shenzhen : But, won't it also make it lighter by reducing the size of the turbine? Cheers
74 TeamAmerica : What? This is a fine example of why I dislike %'s in comparisions. Take away 100% of anything and the remainder is 0. If engine A has an SFC of .5 an
75 Zvezda : In other words, 10 is 25% more than 8, but 8 is 20% less than 10. With very small percentages, the difference is usually negligible. However, with la
76 Rheinbote : Engine bleed air
77 Dynkrisolo : But I have pointed out in your previous message, that you had a lot of misunderstandings. If you are a physicist, then you should know a faster-runni
78 Shenzhen : I guess I was going with the premise that a larger fan required a larger turbine, because of the fan tip speed would need to be reduced (compared to
79 Areopagus : Boeing claimed the 787 would offer 20% lower CASM than a 767. However, at the same time in other places, they claimed that the 767 had a few percent
80 Ikramerica : This is always trotted out. It's been discussed to death, and when Boeing is talking about the 787, it is not saying the 783 is the most efficient pl
81 Zvezda : You've made that assertion. All other things being equal, yes, but there are other ways to reduce noise. Regardless, noise has no effect on SFC (unle
82 Poitin : Nope, I haven't the foggest idea what you do. You seem to know something about airplanes, but you do not do a very good job of expressing yourself. A
83 Dynkrisolo : Not completely correct. One way to reduce noise is to have a bigger fan. That was one of the iterations the 3XX program had gone through. A bigger fa
84 Poitin : Did you (Dynkrisolo) know that the Wright brothers, who had limited education, were the ones to design the first aerodynamically efficient propellers
85 Dynkrisolo : You inferred. Not I implied. I challenge you to find where I said it was a linear relationship. All I said was
86 Post contains images Poitin : At least you have a basic understanding of English usage, as many confuse implied and inferred. You implied that when you said dogmatically: Dynkriso
87 Zvezda : No explanation is ever complete for those who choose to remain ignorant. Mine was correct. I never stated they were. You inferred it. No, you asserte
88 Post contains images Stitch : I seem to be lost. I was looking for a thread on the A380's new break-even point.
89 Dynkrisolo : Really? What is this: 'Nuf said. Plenty of other examples, but I won't bother. What's wrong with this statement? A 70k T900 will cost more than a 64k
90 Suske : How come anything concerning the A380 always wind up about Boeing?
91 Post contains images TeamAmerica : The answer is 42!!! (times ten)
92 Zvezda : Noise per se has no effect (except as I mentioned above) on SFC. There are many design parameters that affect both noise and SFC. There is a huge dif
93 Poitin : So a 70k T900 costs 109% of the 64K T1000. May I see the invoice? No, but I am sure as hell confused by you! Where in your orginal statements did you
94 Dynkrisolo : I didn't say linear, neither did I say 109%. You're arguing with yourself. Zvezda: I'm not going to continue discussing this with you. Let me just do
95 Poitin : Dynkrisolo, I do not know what your problem is, but I can seethat further commications with you is fruitless. There is a wall over there somewhere to
96 Mirrodie : WARNING, WARNING Get back on topic and quit the tit-for-tat nonsensical bickering.
97 Post contains images Sllevin : Call Dassault, Convair, and McDonnell Douglas' commercial transport arms and ask them what happens when you force a program of increasingly higher co
98 Woosie : Me too! And I work at Boeing in Long Beach, so I really do know something about airplanes. I tend not to talk particulars because of data being propr
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...
Break-even Outlook For A380 Now At 420 Aircraft posted Thu Oct 19 2006 13:17:06 by Leelaw
Whats The Break-even Point For Pax Numbers? posted Sun Sep 11 2005 21:33:15 by Grimey
No CRJ900's For US Airways - For Now At Least posted Mon Aug 14 2006 21:19:33 by Planemaker
EOS Claims Loads At 'break-even' Point. posted Tue Jun 20 2006 15:02:02 by 7LBAC111
UPS To Add 5,000 Jobs At SDF & Ramp For A380, B744 posted Wed May 17 2006 23:12:20 by KarlB737
New A380 Hanger At FRA For LH posted Fri Sep 9 2005 01:19:57 by Squirrel83
A380 Break-even: 300+ posted Wed Mar 9 2005 17:45:17 by Mham001
Operating Cost, Break Even For A330/A340/777/747 posted Fri Apr 16 2004 11:19:06 by SailorOrion
Expect Even Longer Waits Now At The Airport posted Sat Feb 22 2003 02:04:37 by B757300
UK - New "super" Wake Vortex Sep For A380 posted Mon Nov 6 2006 16:23:41 by Mptpa