Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Did Boeing QTD2 Program Cost Airbus Billions?  
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9912 times:

In another thread, we got to discussing the chevrons on the 787 engine, and how they reduce noise.

This article explains the various elements of the Boeing QTD2 noise reduction program on the 77W run during 2005.

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers...archive/2005/december/ts_sf07.html

Now the question is this:

When Boeing proposed the 7E7, it was a true 8Y plane. They drew it with engine chevrons, but they did not know the impact of those chevrons yet as the testing was not yet done on the flying test aircraft, and wouldn't be for some time.

Once Boeing completed this test program in 2005, they learned that chevrons + engine lining reduced noise so much that they could reduce the amount of insulation used in the fuselage to protect passengers from in flight engine noise. They determined it would reduce dB levels ahead of the engine by as much as 15 and behind the engines of 4-6 dB. They estimated 800 pounds of insulation could be removed.

It was not too long after the QTD2 tests that Boeing was able to offer the 787 at 9Y due to a suprise ability to thin out the 787 insulation. IIRC, it was attributed to the lack of condensation on the CFRP, but I now wonder if that is only part of the story, or possibly a ruse to obscure the genius of the real reason for most of the savings.

It seems to follow that the QTD2 program allowed Boeing to thin out the insulation on the jet by 600-800 pounds which was enough to gain 2" and widen the cabin, allowing for 9Y seating.

Once 9Y seating was offered, sales of the 787 took off and the A350, as proposed at that time, was no longer competitive. It was so dramatic a change, that Airbus was forced to redesign the A350 at great expense, billions of dollars, and offer an XWB version that can also fit 9Y seating.

So it would seem that the use of CFRP for weight and manufacturing reasons, and the introduction of noise abatement measures on the engines, had positive unintended consequences for Boeing, so much so that they allowed Boeing to redefine the CASM of the aircraft and send Airbus into a spiral of Leahy spin followed by a costly redesign that they are still struggling to recover from.

Quote:
"We see this technology making a big difference on the 787, the 747 Advanced, the next-generation single-aisle airplane, and all new generations of aircraft from here forward," says Walt Gillette, Boeing Commercial Airplanes vice president for 787 Engineering, Manufacturing, and Partner Alignment.

The impact on the 787 truly does seem to be dramatic, but not just in the ways the engineers first imagined...


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3392 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9880 times:

I think that 9Y was the plan from day 1, though its possible that Boeing was planning on more exotic measures to make it happen if they needed to. More exotic insulation's, etc.

The engine noise I don't think would be a major factor in terms of the thickness of the insulation.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9838 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
QTD2

What in the heck does this stand for?



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently onlineMaersk737 From Denmark, joined Feb 2004, 678 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9795 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 2):
Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
QTD2

What in the heck does this stand for?

Quiet Turbo Diesel 2 edition ? Big grin

I would like to know too.

Cheers

Peter



I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
User currently offlineEELonghorn From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9793 times:

Quiet Technology Demonstrator. 2?

I'm Ron Burgundy? Goodnight.

[Edited 2007-07-15 09:41:31]

[Edited 2007-07-15 09:42:12]

User currently offlinePlunaaircanada From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 154 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9769 times:

Quiet Technology Demonstrator Two

its called GoOgLiNg?


for more information visit:

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers...archive/2005/december/ts_sf07.html lazy ppl lol u were one click away from thread starter posted link      


plunaaircanada   

[Edited 2007-07-15 09:51:04]


(E)ngines (T)urning (O)r (P)assengers (S)wimming
User currently offlineEELonghorn From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9763 times:

So what was qtd1?

Needless filler for message too short filter.


User currently onlineMaersk737 From Denmark, joined Feb 2004, 678 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9734 times:

Thanks

I did not look at the first picture the first time  Wink

Cheers

Peter



I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
User currently onlineMaersk737 From Denmark, joined Feb 2004, 678 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9694 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Once 9Y seating was offered, sales of the 787 took off and the A350, as proposed at that time, was no longer competitive. It was so dramatic a change, that Airbus was forced to redesign the A350 at great expense, billions of dollars, and offer an XWB version that can also fit 9Y seating.

I think that Airbus was caught on the the wrong leg.
When they saw the great interest in the 787, Airbus needed to come up with something in a hurry.... It was the ill fated A350. Now that they have had the time, they have launched a competitive aircraft the A350XWB. If we can believe in the specs Airbus has given us.

The hole scenario have costed Airbus a great pile of dollars.


Cheers

Peter



I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9679 times:

You know how car companies can easily go out and buy a competitors car so they can in effect rip it apart and find out how certain things are done, get good estimates on cost to build and all that, how on earth would A or B go out and get their hands on the product to do something like this? It isn't like they can throw a $100m or more around for a preview model  Smile

The article is quite an interesting read, always good to be able to read up on what both A & B are doing in making these types of improvements and even better to read that some of the technology is already being implimented.

It will be interesting to see if the Chevrons can be retrofitted to the various Boeing models and help some airports get a little extra operating time, places like SYD might be able to benifit in the early AM by bringing in some jets with this technology earlier than the others and get a better flow of passengers through customs etc just by getting an extra 15/30 mins of operating time.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9610 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
It was not too long after the QTD2 tests that Boeing was able to offer the 787 at 9Y due to a suprise ability to thin out the 787 insulation.

9Y layouts were present in 7E7 AD&S brochures from the outset, pre 2005, pre QTD2.

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Once 9Y seating was offered, sales of the 787 took off

that's a myth, see above.

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
They estimated 800 pounds of insulation could be removed.

The Frontiers article sez 600lbs, where do the other 200lbs come from?  scratchchin 


User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9596 times:

I think that if we look carefully into airbus's own development programs , they would be R and D on quiet technology aswell so we cant say that boeing was pushing boundries in that arena while airbus was doing nothing !

User currently offlineOlle From Sweden, joined Feb 2007, 272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 9536 times:

Well, I consider this as normal... When you deliver a product you want the competiotion to now about it as late as possible in order to get an advatage... Regarding the A350 it is exactly what A is doing and B want them to tell it so they can answer with the B780 etc...

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 8692 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
It seems to follow that the QTD2 program allowed Boeing to thin out the insulation on the jet by 600-800 pounds which was enough to gain 2" and widen the cabin, allowing for 9Y seating.

Even without 2" they would be able to offer 9Y and still have either seats or aisles wider than 10Y on the 777.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 10):
9Y layouts were present in 7E7 AD&S brochures from the outset, pre 2005, pre QTD2.

Indeed, Air India chose the aircraft in early 2005 because of 9Y capabiliity.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 10):
that's a myth, see above.



Quoting Olle (Reply 12):
When you deliver a product you want the competiotion to now about it as late as possible in order to get an advatage...

 checkmark 

Boeing never provided a cross sectional diagram early in program life, so it was difficult for some to understand how a plane just 4" wider could yield acceptable 9Y seating. The key issue was usable cabin width which is very dependent on the shape of the cabin wall and the vertical position of the cabin floor in the fuselage.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 7305 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
Boeing never provided a cross sectional diagram early in program life,

Depends on what you rate as 'early in the program', AFAIK program start was December 2002?

First hand I'd say one airline was shown a cross sectional diagram in July 2003. Is that early enough? That probably wasn't the first airline receiving a briefing. Cabin width was quoted as 205.6" back then.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
Even without 2" they would be able to offer 9Y...

   That's what they did.

[Edited 2007-07-15 19:39:38]

User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 7171 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 13):
Boeing never provided a cross sectional diagram early in program life, so it was difficult for some to understand how a plane just 4" wider could yield acceptable 9Y seating. The key issue was usable cabin width which is very dependent on the shape of the cabin wall and the vertical position of the cabin floor in the fuselage.

Much of the increase in usable width also came from the use of CFRP frames which are about half the depth of Al ones. The increased stiffness of the CFRP IMHO allowed Boeing to shrink the frame height and widen the interior of the cabin more than the increase in overall width would seem to allow.

This is one of the reasons beyond the corrosion that I am surprised that Airbus is using Al frames for the A350.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 7070 times:

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 14):

Depends on what you rate as 'early in the program', AFAIK program start was December 2002?

First hand I'd say one airline was shown a cross sectional diagram in July 2003. Is that early enough? That probably wasn't the first airline receiving a briefing. Cabin width was quoted as 205.6" back then.

I meant to say Boeing never publicly provided a cross section diagram until relatively late. They publicly explained how 9Y was possible and acceptable in late 2005. Obviously they were showing such information to airlines, but they probably were under NDA, as you didn't see much info being leaked publicly, though I am sure some airlines were passing information to Airbus. Really the only source of a scaled 787 cross sectional diagram during most of 2005 was widebodyphotog.

What prompted Boeing to start talking was probably the fact Airbus had realized it was an issue by the summer of 2005, and started making claims about being able to shave a bit here and there from cabin walls to make an acceptable 9Y configuration.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3392 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6945 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 16):
What prompted Boeing to start talking was probably the fact Airbus had realized it was an issue by the summer of 2005, and started making claims about being able to shave a bit here and there from cabin walls to make an acceptable 9Y configuration.

I think what Boeing said to the airlines that it will be able to do 9Y "better" than a 777 can do 10Y. When airlines told that to Airbus they were not worried since "better" in leahy's mind is some minor trivial difference unless stated otherwise, and the 777 isn't exactly a 10Y plane in actual service. Doing the math in a conventional way also leads you down the garden path that the 787 in 9Y isn't much better than charter.

So Airbus wasn't worried at all, and yet a minor decrease in wall width suddenly allows you to use bog standard 17.2" 3wide assemblies. Even more important, I think that the 787 was designed on that width to start, but it wasn't finalised until the engineers on the insualtion came back with a cost effective thin solution.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6868 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
When Boeing proposed the 7E7, it was a true 8Y plane.

Actually, the initial concept was 7-abreast but with a lower cargo hold reprofiled for dual LD3 containers.

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Once 9Y seating was offered, sales of the 787 took off and the A350, as proposed at that time, was no longer competitive

I don't think that is/was the case. Even with 8-abreast economy seating, the 787-8 blows the 763ER and A332 out of water by a margin that isn't even funny. That is what guaranteed its success. If 9-abreast wasn't possible, I suspect it will still be selling incredibly well. Probably not 700+ orders before first flight, but still more than any widebody before it.

It is true that 9-abreast gives the 787 even better CASM, which I think obviously contributed to the "tipping point" when Airbus changed gears into the A350 XWB. Just recall Air India and the comments made by EK, SQ, IFLC.

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
IIRC, it was attributed to the lack of condensation on the CFRP, but I now wonder if that is only part of the story, or possibly a ruse to obscure the genius of the real reason for most of the savings.

There's also political considerations. The 777 was flying higher than ever when the 787 (then 7E7) got serious momentum as the 773ER testing data came back with wonderful results. The 787 team would have had a hard time pitching an 8 (but easily 9) abreast airplane internally with the 777 doing so well.


User currently offlineTIA From Albania, joined Mar 2006, 524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6868 times:

What a stupid title. Might as well ask if Boeing staying in business is costing Airbus billions. Of course innovation introduced by a competitor will force a company to follow suit if it wants to maintain its position in the market. No company would ever spend money in R&D if it didn't have to.

User currently offlineOlle From Sweden, joined Feb 2007, 272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6604 times:

In the same way as the A330 costed Boeing billions  Wink Without the A330 we would wtill have been flying B767....

Of course it saves the operators billions in the end but the people gaing most is.. you and me getting cheaper or with the fuel cost levels at least not more expensive flights....

When the 737 / 320 new generation arrives together with developing competition from actors like Ryan air this will be interesting for us as travelers...


User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6492 times:

Not to drag thisi thread back to the top but...

Did anyone notice the chevrons on the QTD2 are of uneven depth? I'll venture a guess that they are part of teh test bed to reduce harmonics.

The phased array microphones look like an awesome technology. Phased arrays should allow you to precisly point the mics in the direction you want, control gain, or create a "noise map". What a cool glimps into the R&D tech.

The wheel fairings should help on ice landings... Smile



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineHB88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 814 posts, RR: 31
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5787 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
The impact on the 787 truly does seem to be dramatic, but not just in the ways the engineers first imagined...

Yes, but probably not in the way the title of this thread suggests.

The A380 is itself an extremely quiet aircraft due to a large slew of innovations and developments derived from the nacelle/pylon group in A-FR. These can be reviewed in the more recent publications of the European patents for Airbus FR. Judging from the 380 test results, the 787 is unlikely have a complete monopoly on quiet operation.

In any case as another poster pointed out, this is a no-brainer. While one manufacturer does R&D, the other doesn't stand still  Wink


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5710 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
They drew it with engine chevrons, but they did not know the impact of those chevrons yet as the testing was not yet done on the flying test aircraft, and wouldn't be for some time.

The RR powered 787 has chevons too. GENX has them. Is anything preventing the engine OEM´s to use them on A350´s?

In the meantime in Europa people weren´t sitting on their hands. The A380 is a proof. Since then a QTD2 like programs like Silencer were undertaken.

[Edited 2007-07-16 00:12:03]

User currently offlineLimaNiner From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5639 times:

Quoting EELonghorn (Reply 6):
So what was qtd1?

The 727 Whisperjet?  Wink


25 EA772LR : Maybe a stupid question, but aren't chevrons the zig-zag looking ends on the engine nacele?
26 Theoden : yes
27 Post contains images 7cubed : So does the lack of insulation in the fuselage walls somewhat negate the additional width of the "XWB"? I guess if xwb= +5" of width it does...to some
28 Jbernie : Not necessarily, not saying this is the best example of it, but if one company comes up with a different way of doing things that it just so much but
29 XT6Wagon : Its not the technology in and of its self, its that the 787 sunk airbus's battleship... er I mean A350Mk 1 -> 4 costing airbus nearly $1 billion US i
30 Pygmalion : The chevrons are on the thrust reversers not the engines. They are designed by Boeing not GE or RR. I woul not be at all surprised if Boeing locked u
31 Cricket : Just like MDD did with the two winglets on either side of the nacelle. I wonder why Boeing didn't incorporate that once it took over MDD.
32 SKA380 : Being a cabin mechanic for the last 12 years, i dont see how this is possible as cabin with is only limited by the stringers. Cabin sidewall panels a
33 Rheinbote : The public is irrelevant in this context, as it is the airlines who actually buy the aircraft. There's no point in relating a sudden 'take-off' in 78
34 Post contains links and images Oldeuropean : Haven't we had a thread in may about an An 124 with chevrons on the engines?: An-124 With GenX-like Engine Chevrons (by Francoflier May 12 2007 in Ci
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...
Did Air Arabia Order 70 Airbus A/Cs? posted Sun Jun 10 2007 12:57:35 by UAEflyer
Risks Faced By The Boeing 787 Program posted Fri Jun 8 2007 13:01:50 by Deaphen
Did Boeing Fix A Date For The First 747-8i? posted Wed Apr 25 2007 16:11:27 by CARST
Did Boeing Ever Consider A 757NG? posted Tue Feb 20 2007 04:36:33 by JAM747
Value Of Boeing Deliveries Greater Than Airbus's? posted Thu Jan 18 2007 20:38:33 by AerospaceFan
GE Partnership On The 77W - Why Did Boeing Do It? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 21:22:33 by AirbusA6
Boeing Aims To Keep Airbus @ Bay No 787 Delays! posted Fri Oct 20 2006 04:26:05 by Coelacanth
Boeing's Carson Isn't Counting Airbus Out posted Mon Oct 9 2006 07:41:22 by Osiris30
Boeing Takes Lead As Airbus Order Book Nosedives posted Wed Jul 5 2006 02:16:58 by BoomBoom
Did Boeing Get The 787-8 Size Wrong? posted Thu May 25 2006 03:41:57 by Baron95