Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could Bombardier Or Embraer Design A Wide Body?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3758 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8989 times:

Looking at the fact, that Bombardier and Embraer has started to design jets that are close to a 737 size, could you see them designing a jet around a 787 or A350 XWB size? I know it would be some years from now, but could you see it happening?

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2342 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 8989 times:



Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
could you see them designing a jet around a 787 or A350 XWB size?

could they design it? Im sure their engineers and aircraft designers have the education to design a widebody.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
but could you see it happening?

doubtful in the next 20 years. considering the tough times Boeing and Airbus are going through now, I couldn't see another (rookie) entrant into the market.



Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 938 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8836 times:

The trouble is the massive investment in a new aircraft of any size. The smaller (737/A320 and under) sized aircraft have a massive market, so a larger number of competitor aircraft can be justifiably developed and expect sales to easily pay for their development, and turn a healthy profit for the shareholders. When you get to larger aircraft though, the market size dwindles. There are only so many airports that can handle the large aircraft and have a customer base to warrant their use, and so there is a more finite number of routes and operators that can justify a larger aircraft type. This is a very basic reason (one of many) for the struggle to success for the a380, there just arent that many aircraft of that size required in the world, and its current order list wont come close to break even. I do think it will be a sucess eventually, but not fast.


Yes, Embraer and Bombardier have the experteese to build a new widebody aircraft if they chose to, but I do not see them choosing to as the market just isnt large enough to give a third type on the scene much of a chance of making a profit. They may have a chance if they came out with something suitably revolutionary that it was still selling like hotcakes 20 years down the line (like the A320), but that is not easy nor guranteed. I can see them making types of A321 equivalent perhaps, but holding there for the next 20 years or so at least IMO.


User currently onlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4710 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8808 times:

Maybe a small widebody to replace the A310 / 767-200 on long-haul routes and provide a better alternative to the 783 on short/medium length sectors. This would not compete head to head with Airbus and Boeing.


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineEcuadorianMD11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8797 times:

Is this too far fetched?
Big version: Width: 1000 Height: 679 File size: 152kb
Embraer 2XX


Ecuadorian MD11


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8977 posts, RR: 39
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8781 times:



Quoting EcuadorianMD11 (Reply 4):

Yes. I don't think you will ever find:

1. Giant pilots, or

2. a market large enough to develop an aircraft for pygmies

ps: I'm referring to the scaling between the pax versus cockpit windows  Wink



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8591 times:

Shouldn't they get into 6 abreast airliners first?

User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3070 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8549 times:



Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Looking at the fact, that Bombardier and Embraer has started to design jets that are close to a 737 size, could you see them designing a jet around a 787 or A350 XWB size?

I suppose it's possible somewhere down the road, but I'd much rather see Bombardier get the CSeries in production and selling before they tackle or even think about larger projects, and I'll say the same about Embraer and their spiritual CSeries equivalent.

This brings me to a slightly off-topic point I've been considering in regards to the 787: I can't help but wonder if Boeing might have run into a few less problems with the 787 if they had just built an experimental "proof of concept" plane to test some of the ideas put into use on the production 787. Computer models are great, but as Boeing has rather embarrassingly and expensively found out, there is no substitute for real-world, hands-on experience to verify that the computer models are correct. And this is Boeing, a company that has as much if not more experience building large passenger aircraft than any other company on earth. One can only imagine what sort of problems Bombardier and/or Embraer might encounter building an aircraft the size of an A350/787, which would be radically larger than anything they've built before.



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10251 posts, RR: 97
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 8483 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
could you see them designing a jet around a 787 or A350 XWB size?

Bear in mind perhaps that "designing", and "developing and industrialising" a widebody are worlds apart.
It's this latter bit that an entrant will find difficult. The investment is massive and the payback time long, and the bigger you go, the less room there is for a new entrant.

"Designing", and "designing a class leading product" are also not necessarily the same.
It's easy to see how pressure to reduce both the capital cost and operating cost of more recent widebodys has dramatically complicated the development and industrialisation of both Airbus's and Boeing's latest programmes.

This aspect shouldn't be underestimated.

Rgds


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20357 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 8272 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 6):
Shouldn't they get into 6 abreast airliners first?

Why? Lockheed's first jet-powered civil transport was the L-1011.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7185 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 8263 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):

Why? Lockheed's first jet-powered civil transport was the L-1011.

And even though it was a magnificent aircraft (easily the best of its era) it failed abysmally in the market, and drove Lockheed out of the civilian market completely.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 938 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 8261 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):

Why? Lockheed's first jet-powered civil transport was the L-1011.

Wasnt exactly a fly away sucess for them was it though. Whilst it was arguably a safer aircraft, the versatility of the DC-10 as good as killed it as far as longeivity goes. Personally I dont mind as the thing was inefficient and ugly IMO  duck , and by the opinions of 2 ex tristar captains I know, a pig to land.

Besides my personal bias it is a major lesson from the Tristar that if you are a first time competitor in a new market, you don't have the loyalty of any customers in that market yet, and thus you need an absolute knockout of a product that satisfies requirements the customers diddnt even realise they had yet, all without overengineering or overpricing.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8772 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 8222 times:



Quoting TSS (Reply 7):
if Boeing might have run into a few less problems with the 787 if they had just built an experimental "proof of concept" plane to test some of the ideas put into use on the production 787. Computer models are great, but as Boeing has rather embarrassingly and expensively found out, there is no substitute for real-world, hands-on experience to verify that the computer models are correct.

Isn't that what they have done? The only problem is that Boeing promised final deliveries before their "beta release" aircraft were even built yet. This is an executive mistake, not an engineering mistake. They are building the 787 just like you say, validating with a test aircraft, then they will finalize production standard in 2010 (not this year), and those true production aircraft will probably be built after #20, much like the A380. The refinement process of the A + B models will be strikingly similar.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 8219 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
Quoting Thegeek (Reply 6):
Shouldn't they get into 6 abreast airliners first?

Why? Lockheed's first jet-powered civil transport was the L-1011.

Technically, no. It was the L-188 Electra, which had a disastrous introduction to service (airframes falling apart mid-air) due to a rather severe engineering oversight...

The problem on the Electra was fixed, but by then, the aircraft's reputation in the civil marked had been destroyed. Fortunately for Lockheed, though, it found its niche as a maritime submarine/reconissance patrol aircraft.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 8186 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 13):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
Quoting Thegeek (Reply 6):
Shouldn't they get into 6 abreast airliners first?

Why? Lockheed's first jet-powered civil transport was the L-1011.

Technically, no. It was the L-188 Electra,

Errr... The Electra was a turboprop...


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 8180 times:



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 14):

Errr... The Electra was a turboprop...

Is a turboprop engine not a jet engine swinging a prop?



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineRwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 8173 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 15):
Is a turboprop engine not a jet engine swinging a prop?

Not by any of the usual definitions. They're both turbines, of course, but the "jet" part is related to how the thrust is created.


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 8117 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5):
2. a market large enough to develop an aircraft for pygmies

Having endured the misery of flying as a passenger in a CRJ-200, I suspect Bombardier has long been operating under the assumption that such a market indeed exists.

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7185 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8017 times:



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5):

1. Giant pilots, or

Maybe they're training elephants to fly.... Big grin  duck 



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7956 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 6):
Shouldn't they get into 6 abreast airliners first?

The major predecessor of Bombardier, Canadair, did build a 6-abreast airliner, the CL-44, based on the Bristol Britannia but with R-R Tyne engines and numerous other changes, including a stretched fuselage. However, only a few were acquired for passenger service by Icelandair's predecessor, Loftleidir Icelandic Airways. The rest of the 39 CL-44s were built for several cargo carriers and the Royal Canadian Air Force.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mel Lawrence
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Armstrong



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Olafur Sigurdsson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Olafur Sigurdsson



User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3152 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7913 times:

Of course they could design and build such aircraft. It's no more difficult than what they're doing now. You just have to up the scale a bit.

The bigger barrier to entry is more a question of why? The airline industry has long supported only two or three manufacturers at a time. As you get into the more specialized areas such as large widebodies you often only see one manufacturer as others have tried, and failed, to compete.



DMI
User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7868 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):

Quoting Thegeek (Reply 6):
Shouldn't they get into 6 abreast airliners first?

Why? Lockheed's first jet-powered civil transport was the L-1011.

It's where the money is.


User currently offlineElpinDAB From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 485 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7627 times:

Alright, first, these manufacturers need to prove themselves with their latest aircraft. (Okay, well, Embraer has already done so.) But, Bombardier hasn't yet reached the point where their new airliner will face the manufacturing outsourcing struggles that Boeing has faced. In addition, the CSeries will utilize a new engine, the GTF. God forbid that anything bad happens with the engine, otherwise this potentially great aircraft could end up with a fate like the L-1011 and it's RR engine... Hopefully Bombardier has learned enough though, and will deliver their aircraft on-time with planned or better performance. I can only hope, as I'm a big CSeries fan. It's still a long road for Bombardier, but I hope they can succeed.


But, back on topic...
I almost think that a super-stretched CSeries could fill the 757's niche. With an uprated GTF, as rumored for a 737/A32X replacement, and a new wing, the CSeries could become a new long-haul narrowbody to replace the 757. Good field performance, an efficient climb to high altitude and cruise, combined with long range, this is all it would need. However, it wouldn't be able to complete the mission on just a stretched fuselage and the existing engine and wing, I would assume. I'd love to see a 190 seat stretched CSeries with a more powerful GTF, a wingspan that matched it's fuselage length (for a decent wing loading and aspect ratio for its mission, in addition to beauty), and a nice 4,000nm range for thin trans Atlantic routes, transcons, N. America-C. and S. America routes, and West Coast - Hawaii routes. This would seem like the most logical "next step" for Bombardier.


And don't forget about Mitsubishi too..their jet seems like a nice product, although the cockpit glass makes it look like a cheap Japanese car from the 1980's with an oversized, unneeded spoiler and some crappy body panels....basically riced out. I hope that it's better than this, but almost not, since I'd rather see the CSeries succeed.


User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 938 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7596 times:



Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 22):
Bombardier hasn't yet reached the point where their new airliner will face the manufacturing outsourcing struggles that Boeing has faced.

Though they have been manufacturing in this way for a significant time already, just not so much with composite aircraft parts.

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 22):
I almost think that a super-stretched CSeries could fill the 757's niche.

Not sure it will be soon, as the 75 is still strong, but that does look feasable and nice.

Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 22):
And don't forget about Mitsubishi too..their jet seems like a nice product, although the cockpit glass makes it look like a cheap Japanese car from the 1980's with an oversized, unneeded spoiler and some crappy body panels....basically riced out. I hope that it's better than this, but almost not, since I'd rather see the CSeries succeed.

Not sure I agree with your analysis on the looks of the Mjet, but I'm of the opinion that the market will support both entries easily. I think both will be a sucess but Bombardier's entry moreso because they are a more established name with at least some customer loyalty.


User currently offlineElpinDAB From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 485 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7468 times:



Quoting GST (Reply 23):

Not sure I agree with your analysis on the looks of the Mjet, but I'm of the opinion that the market will support both entries easily. I think both will be a sucess but Bombardier's entry moreso because they are a more established name with at least some customer loyalty.

Yea, I was totally out of control  Silly I really don't have anything against the MJet, but I think it's cockpit windows should change...maybe the current design will change before production, and maybe it will look better in person, but style goes a long ways in aviation design, and I just think that the current cockpit glass ruins Mitsubishi's lovely design. I like everything else about it, and the long range models might even have a little more range than the longest range CSeries.

You're probably right that the market could support both though. Sukhoi's Superjet is in this range too though, so it will be a tight market. It will be interesting to see how Boeing and Airbus respond with their narrowbody replacements. I realize that there are alot of aging narrowbodies to be replaced, but this will be a saturated market that will soon be very competitive among the manufacturers.

It's going to be an interesting time when orders begin to pick up again!


25 GST : I just don't see the Superjet becoming a major competitor in this market unless its costing less than 2/3 of one of the others. Sukhoi and the other R
26 Rwessel : While I'm far from clear on the details, Boeing is supposed to be handling the marketting, sales and (after sale) support for the SSJ-100.
27 Tod : To design a larger aircraft all they would need to do is hire the same folks that currently do it for Boeing and/or Airbus. We do it for money and ma
28 Tod : The inside of the plane should be a good as any other modern jet airliner. They have subbed out payloads systems and intergation to Heath Tecna in Be
29 BritJap : I really hope you're right. Mostly that's just dumb patriotism but I know a few guys working on this project and I hope it goes well for them. But...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Could Bombardier Or Embraer Design A Wide Body?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Powerplants For Airbus Wide Body SST? posted Sat Jun 17 2006 23:23:01 by 747400sp
Embraer Studies Design Bigger Than E195, posted Tue Jul 14 2009 07:42:14 by Keesje
Could An A380 Wake Flip Or Crash A C-5? posted Fri Nov 23 2007 06:58:36 by 747400sp
Runways: 148' Or 150' Wide? posted Fri Feb 9 2001 05:16:45 by FP_v2
Aircraft Manuals Paper Or Electronic? posted Wed Aug 19 2009 07:25:16 by BOACVC10
Boeing 737 Rudder Re-Design posted Wed Aug 12 2009 23:58:03 by Propilot83
Could Computerized Planes Mean A Single Pilot? posted Wed Jul 29 2009 20:25:06 by Adam1115
Ergonomic Cockpit Design Issues posted Mon Jul 20 2009 06:11:23 by BOACVC10
To NAT Or Not To NAT? posted Tue Jul 14 2009 10:46:14 by Meristem
Tandem Rotors Vs Conventional Design In Helos posted Wed Jul 8 2009 04:20:56 by Steman

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format