flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:18 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Aren’t the properties of CFRP that give it the ability to make thinner, longer wings as opposed to reducing weight the same properties that would allow a longer thinner fuselage at the same pressure differential before becoming bending moment dominated? I.e. suit a very long narrow body...

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Besides the ability to do crazy shapes with not much of a penalty - yes that would be another benefit. But how much longer? Could you really go much beyond 753 length for ergonomic reasons without widening the aisle too much and then you might as well go 7W?

I think you might have missed the point. If the impact resistance requirements mean that the structure is unoptimised such that the additional crazy things can be done without penalty then the corollary is that you have picked the wrong material as your margin to the next bottleneck to too great.

Basically, why use CFRP if Al is lighter?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:40 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Aren’t the properties of CFRP that give it the ability to make thinner, longer wings as opposed to reducing weight the same properties that would allow a longer thinner fuselage at the same pressure differential before becoming bending moment dominated? I.e. suit a very long narrow body...

Fred

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Besides the ability to do crazy shapes with not much of a penalty - yes that would be another benefit. But how much longer? Could you really go much beyond 753 length for ergonomic reasons without widening the aisle too much and then you might as well go 7W?

I think you might have missed the point. If the impact resistance requirements mean that the structure is unoptimised such that the additional crazy things can be done without penalty then the corollary is that you have picked the wrong material as your margin to the next bottleneck to too great.

Basically, why use CFRP if Al is lighter?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Potenitally cheaper to manufacture with the right automation as a lot less labour. At least that is what Boeing has been spouting for some time.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2626
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:27 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
This times 1 million. Why aren't more people saying this in aviation? Where is the benefit to composite structure? Can someone please show?


Wing t/c ratio can drop without the spar structure becoming heavier.

This means more aerodynamically efficient solutions.

So even though on the face of it CFRP doesn't reduce wing weight (and increase performance that way), it does enable improved aerodynamic performance.


My understanding (structures was always my weakest area) is that effectively the higher (and more tailorable) Young’s modulus of CFRP means that you can get a structure less likely to buckle in the top surface at increased compression->thinner wing->increased Mcrit.


It is the two spars that carries the bulk of the vertical load, not the skin. The skin will deal mostly with shear between rib bays - and shear isn't really a strong point of CFRP. That is not to say that the skin isn't important - it can be used as a quasi-end-cap to a large square section beam... but not its focal point.

So you tailor the strength of the spar to be stiffer and stronger in the vertical sense rather than horizontal by more than just shape (as you do with metals), but by layup too.


flipdewaf wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
There is a huge benefit for the fuselage structure, just that the fuselage alone contributes not that much to the overall empty weight. For an A320 it is just 4,5-4,6 metric tons which is 11% of the OEW. So even a reduction of the fuselage weight by 25%, just gives you an OEW reduction of ~2,5%.


There is benefit on larger planes.

But not so much on smaller aircraft as laminate thickness has to be large enough to deal with impact damage satisfactorily. So that concern dominates hoop stress meaning you can't go as thin as you would otherwise.


My take on this (and feel free to correct me) is that if you get to the level where CFRP is limited by impact resistance and so in theory you could exploit that additional required thickness by doing crazy shapes you would actually be better just to not do a crazy shape and use a more appropriate material.


Hence why the CSeries uses Al-Li fuselage and why there is very little talk of any replacement single aisle using CFRP fuselage.

But like I said, CNF resins may change that. But its not ready for prime-time yet.


[edit: As an aside to this, the manufacturing of an Al-Li fuselage is more expensive than was hoped. Ideally Airbus/BBD would go to Al2024 - but see that extremely mild ovoid I keep going on about - no can do.(Or at least not without weight & inspection interval sacrifices - due to the stress concentrations.)

Which feeds into my opinion that the 7AB ovoid would be an utter nightmare.]


flipdewaf wrote:
Aren’t the properties of CFRP that give it the ability to make thinner, longer wings as opposed to reducing weight the same properties that would allow a longer thinner fuselage at the same pressure differential before becoming bending moment dominated? I.e. suit a very long narrow body...


Yes but no but.

You could make the keel and crown beams smaller. But the skin and frames are dominated by concern for impact damage - so your scope for thinning is very limited there - even though the loading being primarily from compression is ideally suited to anisotropic material properties. Bigger the aircraft, bigger the hoop stress, so eventually you do gain a weight advantage.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:38 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:

Wing t/c ratio can drop without the spar structure becoming heavier.

This means more aerodynamically efficient solutions.

So even though on the face of it CFRP doesn't reduce wing weight (and increase performance that way), it does enable improved aerodynamic performance.


My understanding (structures was always my weakest area) is that effectively the higher (and more tailorable) Young’s modulus of CFRP means that you can get a structure less likely to buckle in the top surface at increased compression->thinner wing->increased Mcrit.


It is the two spars that carries the bulk of the vertical load, not the skin. The skin will deal mostly with shear between rib bays - and shear isn't really a strong point of CFRP. That is not to say that the skin isn't important - it can be used as a quasi-end-cap to a large square section beam... but not its focal point.

So you tailor the strength of the spar to be stiffer and stronger in the vertical sense rather than horizontal by more than just shape (as you do with metals), but by layup too.


flipdewaf wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:

There is benefit on larger planes.

But not so much on smaller aircraft as laminate thickness has to be large enough to deal with impact damage satisfactorily. So that concern dominates hoop stress meaning you can't go as thin as you would otherwise.


My take on this (and feel free to correct me) is that if you get to the level where CFRP is limited by impact resistance and so in theory you could exploit that additional required thickness by doing crazy shapes you would actually be better just to not do a crazy shape and use a more appropriate material.


Hence why the CSeries uses Al-Li fuselage and why there is very little talk of any replacement single aisle using CFRP fuselage.

But like I said, CNF resins may change that. But its not ready for prime-time yet.


[edit: As an aside to this, the manufacturing of an Al-Li fuselage is more expensive than was hoped. Ideally Airbus/BBD would go to Al2024 - but see that extremely mild ovoid I keep going on about - no can do.(Or at least not without weight & inspection interval sacrifices - due to the stress concentrations.)

Which feeds into my opinion that the 7AB ovoid would be an utter nightmare.]


flipdewaf wrote:
Aren’t the properties of CFRP that give it the ability to make thinner, longer wings as opposed to reducing weight the same properties that would allow a longer thinner fuselage at the same pressure differential before becoming bending moment dominated? I.e. suit a very long narrow body...


Yes but no but.

You could make the keel and crown beams smaller. But the skin and frames are dominated by concern for impact damage - so your scope for thinning is very limited there - even though the loading being primarily from compression is ideally suited to anisotropic material properties. Bigger the aircraft, bigger the hoop stress, so eventually you do gain a weight advantage.


But it's probably not an Ovoid. https://jonostrower.com/2018/04/toddler ... -fuselage/
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:50 pm

..... “But it's probably not an Ovoid”

The 737 barrel / fuselage is tried and true for a single aisle. No reason what so ever to retool over a tried and true design.

There exist other ways to give breadth to remain competitive in terms of comfort with the current cross section.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
DenverTed
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:58 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
Comparing a 3-3 with containers to a 2-3-2 with the same container, about a 160" fuselage at 55m versus 192" fuselage at 50m. So 10% more skin for the 2-3-2, but you get an extra aisle and two more aisle seats. Plus there must be some structural savings for a less slender proportion. And for an equal landing gear height, the 2-3-2 has a better rotation angle for 6,000 ft runways. So, I think one could bend the economic case either way with various assumptions, and one may work better depending on specific conditions.


Aisles don't pay fares.

If aisles have no value, first and business would be 3-3 in widebodies. Aisle seats are worth more and can be sold for more than middle seats, just like there is an upcharge for more legroom. How much is one thing, but there is value in two more aisle seats, in addition to turnaround time, or customer satisfaction with two aisles. If customer satisfaction were not a factor, there would be windowless airports like a Walmart. Why would passengers pay for windows? Windows don't pay fares.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2626
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:11 pm

morrisond wrote:


Please stop.

Its the same damn thing dressed up differently.

Significant changes in compound curvatures = local stress concentrations
With some sections having radii far above overall fuselage diameter = compression on the floor beams
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2626
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:17 pm

DenverTed wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
Comparing a 3-3 with containers to a 2-3-2 with the same container, about a 160" fuselage at 55m versus 192" fuselage at 50m. So 10% more skin for the 2-3-2, but you get an extra aisle and two more aisle seats. Plus there must be some structural savings for a less slender proportion. And for an equal landing gear height, the 2-3-2 has a better rotation angle for 6,000 ft runways. So, I think one could bend the economic case either way with various assumptions, and one may work better depending on specific conditions.


Aisles don't pay fares.

If aisles have no value, first and business would be 3-3 in widebodies. Aisle seats are worth more and can be sold for more than middle seats, just like there is an upcharge for more legroom. How much is one thing, but there is value in two more aisle seats, in addition to turnaround time, or customer satisfaction with two aisles. If customer satisfaction were not a factor, there would be windowless airports like a Walmart. Why would passengers pay for windows? Windows don't pay fares.


Your diverting off point. No one is talking about sizing NMA for 2+3+2 based on business class. Otherwise it'd clearly be economy 8AB.

A 3+3 @economy wide fuselage can run at reduced densities, i.e. 2+2 just as well as a 2+3+2 @economy can be converted to a 2 + 1 + 2 (or whatever)
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:22 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
But it's probably not an Ovoid. https://jonostrower.com/2018/04/toddler-helped-explain-boeings-nma-fuselage/


Please stop.

Its the same damn thing dressed up differently.

Significant changes in compound curvatures = local stress concentrations
With some sections having radii far above overall fuselage diameter = compression on the floor beams


Yes but would the stress concentrations not be located at the floor beams if the sections are circular? The top putting it in tension offset by the bottom putting it in Compression? Couldn't they basically offset each other? Or not be that big of a difference? What about the air pressure on the bottom of the fuselage while flying to help keep its shape? That force would not be insignificant.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:47 pm

morrisond wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
morrisond wrote:


Please stop.

Its the same damn thing dressed up differently.

Significant changes in compound curvatures = local stress concentrations
With some sections having radii far above overall fuselage diameter = compression on the floor beams


Yes but would the stress concentrations not be located at the floor beams if the sections are circular? The top putting it in tension offset by the bottom putting it in Compression? Couldn't they basically offset each other? Or not be that big of a difference? What about the air pressure on the bottom of the fuselage while flying to help keep its shape? That force would not be insignificant.

You asked this exact same question, almost verbatim a week ago, are you trolling?

There is no top and bottom doing different things. Tell me how half a balloon works!?!?

You are right that the force is not insignificant, it’s ~7t/m^2 that’s why it’s so important to make sure the floor is in tension and not compression because that’ll ruin your day. Look at the mess it made of the circular 779X.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:07 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:

Please stop.

Its the same damn thing dressed up differently.

Significant changes in compound curvatures = local stress concentrations
With some sections having radii far above overall fuselage diameter = compression on the floor beams


Yes but would the stress concentrations not be located at the floor beams if the sections are circular? The top putting it in tension offset by the bottom putting it in Compression? Couldn't they basically offset each other? Or not be that big of a difference? What about the air pressure on the bottom of the fuselage while flying to help keep its shape? That force would not be insignificant.

You asked this exact same question, almost verbatim a week ago, are you trolling?

There is no top and bottom doing different things. Tell me how half a balloon works!?!?

You are right that the force is not insignificant, it’s ~7t/m^2 that’s why it’s so important to make sure the floor is in tension and not compression because that’ll ruin your day. Look at the mess it made of the circular 779X.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I get it - I'm just trying to find someone who can think outside the box a little. Obviously Boeing has found something and the math works making the shape possible. I'm just trying to understand how it possibly could.

Is that the force on the belly 7T/m^2? Would that not offset the force of the belly trying to assume the radius of the top of the fuselage and trying to turn the floor beams into a pretzel?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:30 pm

morrisond wrote:

I get it

Yeah... clearly....
morrisond wrote:
- I'm just trying to find someone who can think outside the box a little.

Yeah, I work in R&D, I know about ‘thinking outside the box’ it’s what managers say when a ridiculous idea won’t be let go when it has been shown to be bad, commonly known as ‘ugly baby syndrome’.
morrisond wrote:
Obviously Boeing has found something and the math works making the shape possible.

Obviously? I’m not sure there’s anything.
morrisond wrote:
I'm just trying to understand how it possibly could.

And the answer is with a lot of structure added to support the additional loads, no one can tell you exactly how much because it is highly complex and dependent on the exact scenarios being played out, the exact loads and shapes and the materials involved. Even if we knew all those things we’d still need some pretty FEA software to run it on. But because someone cannot say exactly how bad it would be does not mean that it wouldn’t be bad. It’s like saying someone cannot tell you exactly how fast a bullet might be going so we cannot for sure say it’s bad to stand in front of it.
morrisond wrote:

Is that the force on the belly 7T/m^2?

It’s 7tm^-2 perpendicular to the surface of the skin. Pushing outwards.
morrisond wrote:
Would that not offset the force of the belly trying to assume the radius of the top of the fuselage and trying to turn the floor beams into a pretzel?
it would not try to assume the radius of the top of the fuselage, it would try to assume the most stable shape, a sphere or domed ended cylinder of circumference of the current material. If the floor attachment points are closer than they would be if the fuselage formed a circle then the floor would be in tension, if they are further they will be in tension. Tension is better than compression as it takes less material to handle it because there is not buckling modes to worry about. Think about a stick, you can put it in compression and break it much easier than you can in tension. In fact I wager it’s impossible for a human to break a 1mm diameter steel wire in tension, compression, a different story, you could bent a whole 500mm wide 1mm thick sheet in compression.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sat Feb 08, 2020 12:14 am

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

I get it

Yeah... clearly....
morrisond wrote:
- I'm just trying to find someone who can think outside the box a little.

Yeah, I work in R&D, I know about ‘thinking outside the box’ it’s what managers say when a ridiculous idea won’t be let go when it has been shown to be bad, commonly known as ‘ugly baby syndrome’.
morrisond wrote:
Obviously Boeing has found something and the math works making the shape possible.

Obviously? I’m not sure there’s anything.
morrisond wrote:
I'm just trying to understand how it possibly could.

And the answer is with a lot of structure added to support the additional loads, no one can tell you exactly how much because it is highly complex and dependent on the exact scenarios being played out, the exact loads and shapes and the materials involved. Even if we knew all those things we’d still need some pretty FEA software to run it on. But because someone cannot say exactly how bad it would be does not mean that it wouldn’t be bad. It’s like saying someone cannot tell you exactly how fast a bullet might be going so we cannot for sure say it’s bad to stand in front of it.
morrisond wrote:

Is that the force on the belly 7T/m^2?

It’s 7tm^-2 perpendicular to the surface of the skin. Pushing outwards.
morrisond wrote:
Would that not offset the force of the belly trying to assume the radius of the top of the fuselage and trying to turn the floor beams into a pretzel?
it would not try to assume the radius of the top of the fuselage, it would try to assume the most stable shape, a sphere or domed ended cylinder of circumference of the current material. If the floor attachment points are closer than they would be if the fuselage formed a circle then the floor would be in tension, if they are further they will be in tension. Tension is better than compression as it takes less material to handle it because there is not buckling modes to worry about. Think about a stick, you can put it in compression and break it much easier than you can in tension. In fact I wager it’s impossible for a human to break a 1mm diameter steel wire in tension, compression, a different story, you could bent a whole 500mm wide 1mm thick sheet in compression.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Good information. Thank you.

Kevlar does a pretty good job at stopping bullets at a pretty light weight. Before that it was steel plates (The Good, The Bad and The Ugly).

Okay so it’s impossible to know but you would think Boeing would be able to do the FEA work to figure it out. Computers aren’t getting slower and you can iterate faster and faster.

If the MAX disaster didn’t happen we would know by now how they solved it. But they must have as they were very close to ATO and I don’t know if any credible reports that it wasn’t 7W.

It’s not an impossible problem and even at a 50% weight penalty Per M a Carbon 7W tube shouldn’t be any heavier than an 6W Aluminum tube which destroys the weight argument at lest in competition to an A322. Even if it’s a little more it appears the fuselage is only about 5% of the MTOW (at least on the A320). I would guess the percentage falls on a longer range airplane as they are bigger winged/heavier engines/more fuel.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sat Feb 08, 2020 1:30 am

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

I get it

Yeah... clearly....
morrisond wrote:
- I'm just trying to find someone who can think outside the box a little.

Yeah, I work in R&D, I know about ‘thinking outside the box’ it’s what managers say when a ridiculous idea won’t be let go when it has been shown to be bad, commonly known as ‘ugly baby syndrome’.
morrisond wrote:
Obviously Boeing has found something and the math works making the shape possible.

Obviously? I’m not sure there’s anything.
morrisond wrote:
I'm just trying to understand how it possibly could.

And the answer is with a lot of structure added to support the additional loads, no one can tell you exactly how much because it is highly complex and dependent on the exact scenarios being played out, the exact loads and shapes and the materials involved. Even if we knew all those things we’d still need some pretty FEA software to run it on. But because someone cannot say exactly how bad it would be does not mean that it wouldn’t be bad. It’s like saying someone cannot tell you exactly how fast a bullet might be going so we cannot for sure say it’s bad to stand in front of it.
morrisond wrote:

Is that the force on the belly 7T/m^2?

It’s 7tm^-2 perpendicular to the surface of the skin. Pushing outwards.
morrisond wrote:
Would that not offset the force of the belly trying to assume the radius of the top of the fuselage and trying to turn the floor beams into a pretzel?
it would not try to assume the radius of the top of the fuselage, it would try to assume the most stable shape, a sphere or domed ended cylinder of circumference of the current material. If the floor attachment points are closer than they would be if the fuselage formed a circle then the floor would be in tension, if they are further they will be in tension. Tension is better than compression as it takes less material to handle it because there is not buckling modes to worry about. Think about a stick, you can put it in compression and break it much easier than you can in tension. In fact I wager it’s impossible for a human to break a 1mm diameter steel wire in tension, compression, a different story, you could bent a whole 500mm wide 1mm thick sheet in compression.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought the concept was that they could flatten the bottom by putting the two side vertical struts in the cargo hold in tension. Or use the flat bottom of the cargo hold as structure. Its seems like there are a lot more brace points and large areas at the joints to make moment connections. That said, sounds complicated for whatever gain. As far as the 777-9, what's wrong with a circle? I thought that was the easiest shape and is on the 777, A300/330/340, 747, MC-21.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sat Feb 08, 2020 1:43 am

flipdewaf wrote:
Yeah, I work in R&D, I know about ‘thinking outside the box’ it’s what managers say when a ridiculous idea won’t be let go when it has been shown to be bad, commonly known as ‘ugly baby syndrome’.
morrisond wrote:
Obviously Boeing has found something and the math works making the shape possible.


"Thinking outside the box" is what I hear when a stupid idea needs to be delivered against an absurd schedule at no cost. It seems Fred and I worked in similar companies.

morrisond wrote:

Kevlar does a pretty good job at stopping bullets at a pretty light weight. Before that it was steel plates (The Good, The Bad and The Ugly).

Kevlar works because the structure and concept is fundamentally different. A solid piece of Kevlar would not stop bullets. But kevlar uses many layers with other materials in between and this layering concept is much more effective than the concept of using a strong solid material.

morrisond wrote:

Okay so it’s impossible to know but you would think Boeing would be able to do the FEA work to figure it out. Computers aren’t getting slower and you can iterate faster and faster.

Anyone who claims that FEA can solve all problems obviously does not understand this technology. FEA is extremely complex and can evaluate the design which goes in, but not create designs. In it is highly dependent on the skill of the modeller and the assumptions which go in. I have seen many FEA simulations which are beautifully looking pictures full of nonsense. For a good example of how FEA can proof nonsense, look for the academic paper on MH370 and the theory why no wreckage could be found. FEA showed that under the right angle the plane could dive into the ocean at high speed and the wing would shear up but fuselage stay intact and dive like a submarine and end up resting as 1 piece at the bottom of the sea.

morrisond wrote:

It’s not an impossible problem and even at a 50% weight penalty Per M a Carbon 7W tube shouldn’t be any heavier than an 6W Aluminum tube which destroys the weight argument at lest in competition to an A322. Even if it’s a little more it appears the fuselage is only about 5% of the MTOW (at least on the A320). I would guess the percentage falls on a longer range airplane as they are bigger winged/heavier engines/more fuel.

I have seen a presentation by Hexcel at an aerospace conference that carbon has 3 problems for smaller planes:
1) The benefit is non-linear: as it scales up, it becomes more efficient. For a wide body, the weight benefits are significant but for a small aircraft less so. It also depends on the complexity of the structure, so wings are easier to justify than for simple structures.
2) Related to that, it takes longer to manufacture but that also depends on structure complexity. For a fuselage, they estimated maximum build rate for a full carbon narrow body fuselage is around 20 to 25 per month.
3) Cost, cost cost. Carbon costs about 10x Al per kg. You don't get even close to 10x weight saving.

And why does everyone talk about Carbon: this is old stuff. The real advances right now are 3D printing of metal parts. It is starting with brackets. Small savings per part, but with the number in an aircraft it adds up. Examples are injectors in the new GE9X and Airbus using brackets. This works because the part can be designed without the limitation of traditional machining manufacturing limitations.

I read already for more than 5 years that NMA is the new magic solution which is going to crush all competition. But Boeing still does not launch because they can't make the business case. And that is because this business is mature, highly advanced and highly competitive. There are no simple solutions. Look at Embrear with the E2. The "no brainer" solution of adding GTF is not selling. I even has magic new carbon wing. Still not selling. CSeries. Fantastic design but R&D killed the company and Airbus is investing a fortune to bring production cost down by at least 25% to make it sellable.

This business is very difficult and there are no easy solutions.
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739/ER 742 743 744/M 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:09 am

morrisond wrote:

Okay so it’s impossible to know but you would think Boeing would be able to do the FEA work to figure it out. Computers aren’t getting slower and you can iterate faster and faster.



This summed the most appropriate thing to post right now...

https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:04 am

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Okay so it’s impossible to know but you would think Boeing would be able to do the FEA work to figure it out. Computers aren’t getting slower and you can iterate faster and faster.



This summed the most appropriate thing to post right now...

https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How is that Analysis coming comparing an 170" H x 186"W (and Stitch is right - it could be narrower) - 20' shorter NMA to an A320 tube coming?

Yes I'm sure innovation in Aviation has peaked - there will never be any more advancements and no aircraft manufacturer will ever build a fuselage that isn't taller than it's rounder or at least equal or use anything other Aluminum for a fuselage.

They figured out how to build an A-12/SR-71 back in the 1960's with Slide Rulers and a very small team - so hundred's/thousand's with very advanced computers can't figure out how to build a wider than taller fuselage using mush more advanced materials and something they may have been working on for at least 12-13 years? You would have to guess they would have built one or two prototype cross sections in that time.

Kelly Johnson would be spinning in his grave.
Last edited by morrisond on Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat Feb 08, 2020 11:05 am

morrisond wrote:
seahawk wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Would you care to add some reasoning as to why it's not that effective?


Because your new design would be inferior to a circular or double bubble design using the same construction methods. In addition the basic geometric disadvantage of the 7 abreast seating stays with you. Sure this might be the most efficient 7 abreast design, if you do not want to have a cargo carrying capacity, but the overall design is still less efficient than a conventional 6 or 8 abreast.

So in the end you move to the most modern fuselage construction technique to get you fuselage weight down by 25% compared to a old style metal tube and then you give up 30% of this due to your ovid shape and probably more than the rest due to your ineffective 7 abreast seating configuration.

So all other new designs using the same fuselage construction methods will or better could enjoy a design advantage over your design.


I get it - but no one is talking about no cargo carrying capacity - I think most assume it would be a XL LD3-45.

Yes - if you are competing with a clean sheet 6W - but how much longer and heavier would it have to get for the same capacity - it looks like 20% more length as I calculated above - that is a lot and as others have pointed out it means things like heavier longer gear - much stronger wingbox, etc.. As I showed above a Carbon 7W fuselage could be 50% heavier than an Carbon 6W A320 series per meter and your fuselage weight wouldn't change.

This shouldn't be that much either as due to the overly thick fuselage skins which would add stiffness means you can save weight elsewhere. The difference would be minimal either plus or minus.

Boeing is most likely looking at Competing with the Airbus A320 Fuselage in Aluminum in an lengthened A322 version. Yes 8W could be more efficient but that is way too big and even harder to make efficient with a given container size.

The 7W wins over the A320 as you can stretch the 7W more. Plus given that fuselage weight is such a minimal part of an aircraft - it's not really a handicap for an eventual 737 successor with smaller wing/wingbox/gear/engines. Which of course brings massive economy of scale which NMA would never get as a standalone 8W program.

The cross section really needs to be shared with NSA - and as I showed above it doesn't really seem like that much of a disadvantage to be 7W.

It may not be 7W but it almost definitely won't be 8W and it seems like it's a wash with 6W - with 7W having more growth possible.

Then assuming FSA (Future SMALL Airplane) is the next Boeing Brazil project (which takes on short range under 3,000nm missions in an 5W design up to 180 Y seats), they then have NMA/NSA in 7W (Middle Sized Airplane smallest 200Y at about 4,000NM and largest 320Y at 5,500NM), and the Large passenger Aircraft is Variants on the 787 - Small, Medium and Large.

I think it would be amazing if the 777X makes it to 2030 as a Passenger Aircraft - but it will have a place as the large freighter for a long time as 747 winds down and Boeing uses the factory space for NMA.

This whole strategy fits in with what Boeing has been predicting for years - Frequency over Capacity as I can see NMA in 7W replacing a lot of 787/330 missions.


A7 abreast carrying only LD3/45s will have no cargo capacity except the bags of the passengers.

The rest of your analysis is imho tainted by the desire to justify a certain size of the plane. Sure there is a segment where 7 abreast is the best solution, but it still faces pressure from a smaller plane with lower trip costs and similar CASM and a larger plane with higher trip costs but lower CASM.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat Feb 08, 2020 12:07 pm

The A320 is not the benchmark for the new plane. It will be a 40 years old nearly historic design by 2030. If you develop something new it must obliterate the A320, if it does not, the new design is not worth the effort. And to be honest I do not see a 7 abreast ovid tube with wings doing this. A blended wing body or a strut wing solution might do.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat Feb 08, 2020 12:10 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Okay so it’s impossible to know but you would think Boeing would be able to do the FEA work to figure it out. Computers aren’t getting slower and you can iterate faster and faster.



This summed the most appropriate thing to post right now...

https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How is that Analysis coming comparing an 170" H x 186"W (and Stitch is right - it could be narrower) - 20' shorter NMA to an A320 tube coming?

I have done 4 of the 6 scenarios and may be able to set the last 2 up tonight depending on the weather (wind and rain due to make me have to stay indoors). I’m not sure it could be narrower, I started the analysis by doing some CAD work and I’ll show you the drawings all together when I do bring up the rest of the discussion but at 17” seats and 16” aisles there is no room to spare.

morrisond wrote:
Yes I'm sure innovation in Aviation has peaked - there will never be any more advancements and no aircraft manufacturer will ever build a fuselage that isn't taller than it's rounder or at least equal or use anything other Aluminum for a fuselage.


?
morrisond wrote:

They figured out how to build an A-12/SR-71 back in the 1960's with Slide Rulers and a very small team - so hundred's/thousand's with very advanced computers can't figure out how to build a wider than taller fuselage using mush more advanced materials and something they may have been working on for at least 12-13 years?

I don’t think anybody has said it cannot be done, the comparison you make is a bit wild and akin to asking why they can’t make my Kia go as fast as Lewis Hamiltons merc.

The issue with the ovoid as described is that additional weight required in the structure hampers the economics.
morrisond wrote:
You would have to guess they would have built one or two prototype cross sections in that time.

Maybe, maybe not. I would guess that the cross sections are built ‘virtually’ and the pertinent sections are built and tested separately to validate and update the modelling parameters.
morrisond wrote:
Kelly Johnson would be spinning in his grave.
I understand what and why Kelly Johnson did what he did. I have his rules in the wall of my office to remind me. Kelly Johnson’s remit was significantly different to what Boeing’s is and the result of what he did was to further the experimental work at speed. I’m sure if Kelly Johnson’s structural guy had said “don’t build an oval fuselage” he would have done something different rather than keep plugging.

What Kelly Johnson would do it totally irrelevant to why an oval fuselage isn’t a good idea however.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:29 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

This summed the most appropriate thing to post right now...

https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How is that Analysis coming comparing an 170" H x 186"W (and Stitch is right - it could be narrower) - 20' shorter NMA to an A320 tube coming?

I have done 4 of the 6 scenarios and may be able to set the last 2 up tonight depending on the weather (wind and rain due to make me have to stay indoors). I’m not sure it could be narrower, I started the analysis by doing some CAD work and I’ll show you the drawings all together when I do bring up the rest of the discussion but at 17” seats and 16” aisles there is no room to spare.

morrisond wrote:
Yes I'm sure innovation in Aviation has peaked - there will never be any more advancements and no aircraft manufacturer will ever build a fuselage that isn't taller than it's rounder or at least equal or use anything other Aluminum for a fuselage.


?
morrisond wrote:

They figured out how to build an A-12/SR-71 back in the 1960's with Slide Rulers and a very small team - so hundred's/thousand's with very advanced computers can't figure out how to build a wider than taller fuselage using mush more advanced materials and something they may have been working on for at least 12-13 years?

I don’t think anybody has said it cannot be done, the comparison you make is a bit wild and akin to asking why they can’t make my Kia go as fast as Lewis Hamiltons merc.

The issue with the ovoid as described is that additional weight required in the structure hampers the economics.
morrisond wrote:
You would have to guess they would have built one or two prototype cross sections in that time.

Maybe, maybe not. I would guess that the cross sections are built ‘virtually’ and the pertinent sections are built and tested separately to validate and update the modelling parameters.
morrisond wrote:
Kelly Johnson would be spinning in his grave.
I understand what and why Kelly Johnson did what he did. I have his rules in the wall of my office to remind me. Kelly Johnson’s remit was significantly different to what Boeing’s is and the result of what he did was to further the experimental work at speed. I’m sure if Kelly Johnson’s structural guy had said “don’t build an oval fuselage” he would have done something different rather than keep plugging.

What Kelly Johnson would do it totally irrelevant to why an oval fuselage isn’t a good idea however.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thank you for putting in the effort. I look forward to your analysis.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:30 pm

seahawk wrote:
The A320 is not the benchmark for the new plane. It will be a 40 years old nearly historic design by 2030. If you develop something new it must obliterate the A320, if it does not, the new design is not worth the effort. And to be honest I do not see a 7 abreast ovid tube with wings doing this. A blended wing body or a strut wing solution might do.


I don't disagree with you but if they can't even do an oval I'm not holding my breath for something more advanced.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:09 pm

morrisond wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The A320 is not the benchmark for the new plane. It will be a 40 years old nearly historic design by 2030. If you develop something new it must obliterate the A320, if it does not, the new design is not worth the effort. And to be honest I do not see a 7 abreast ovid tube with wings doing this. A blended wing body or a strut wing solution might do.


I don't disagree with you but if they can't even do an oval I'm not holding my breath for something more advanced.


Doing it is easy, doing it while neutralizing the basic disadvantages of a 7 abreast and ovid design is the problem, especially as the benchmark must be a newly designed 6 and 8 abreast circular or double bubble design and not some 1980ies A320.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3544
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:04 pm

But it is interesting that a tube and wings with two bypass engines is an almost standardized design. Exacting more efficiency is ever more expensive. Two planes older than most passengers carry the most of those passengers. Speed improvements - forget about it. Comfort? business international is awesome, Y varies from bad to OK to good. 3D printing is being back loaded on those old planes, perhaps more successfully than robots replacing workers. Those two ancient NBs have been tweaked and adjusted to where they are as near perfect as any homo sapiens artifact. Amazing!

Boeing knew it could not make a new NB using the most modern design and manufacturing to compete with the ancient 320. It struggled with an NMA, and the outcome seems to be uncertain at the best.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:23 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
But it is interesting that a tube and wings with two bypass engines is an almost standardized design. Exacting more efficiency is ever more expensive. Two planes older than most passengers carry the most of those passengers. Speed improvements - forget about it. Comfort? business international is awesome, Y varies from bad to OK to good. 3D printing is being back loaded on those old planes, perhaps more successfully than robots replacing workers. Those two ancient NBs have been tweaked and adjusted to where they are as near perfect as any homo sapiens artifact. Amazing!

Boeing knew it could not make a new NB using the most modern design and manufacturing to compete with the ancient 320. It struggled with an NMA, and the outcome seems to be uncertain at the best.


Could not make, is wrong - did not make is correct. The decision would have to be made in 2006 to 2008 to launch a 737 replacement program, but that was exactly when they did the 787. But in the end they underestimated the GTF as a viable product, which was the main fault in judgement.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat Feb 08, 2020 6:34 pm

Kevlar does a pretty good job at stopping bullets at a pretty light weight. Before that it was steel plates (The Good, The Bad and The Ugly).


Kevlar only works because it's used in a layering and lamination fashion, with layers of Kevlar all at different orientations built up. This creates almost a lamination effect (think plyboard) where a weak material is built up and made successively stronger. As a medieval arms and armor enthusiast, the basic principle dates back thousands of years with layers of materials (steel, leather, maille, even thick cloth) used in that fashion. Kevlar on its own isn't a magical material - its how it's applied.

Oh, and Kevlar has serious problems stopping medieval weapons. A bodkin point or a rondel dagger will go right through a Kevlar vest precisely because of the way it's layered and its fibrous nature. Again, it isn't a wonder material. Its all in how it's used, applied, layered. I would imagine that the materials used to build aircraft are quite the same!
 
LH707330
Posts: 2271
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sat Feb 08, 2020 6:42 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Okay so it’s impossible to know but you would think Boeing would be able to do the FEA work to figure it out. Computers aren’t getting slower and you can iterate faster and faster.



This summed the most appropriate thing to post right now...

https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ha ha, I was just thinking about this one as well.

The Kelly Johnson reference is funny: he was effective because he stayed focused and didn't let this type of nonsense impact the project. A 7W seems risky given the weight penalty.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26711
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:40 pm

seahawk wrote:
The decision would have to be made in 2006 to 2008 to launch a 737 replacement program, but that was exactly when they did the 787. But in the end they underestimated the GTF as a viable product, which was the main fault in judgement.


Well Boeing did launch a serious 737 Replacement Study in the mid-2000s and I doubt they underestimated the GTF as a viable product for that program.

It was pretty clear from the outset that the GTF was not going to work for the 737 due to lack of ground clearance. Pratt believed they could (somehow) mount it on the 737 even with the 80 inch fan, but it would have required the nacelle to be positioned even more...precariously...than the LEAP. So GTF probably really impacted the MAX's handling characteristics and with Boeing being pressured by at least one major customer to minimize training and handling differences between MAX and the Next Generation, the GTF was effectively a non-starter on the MAX from multiple standpoints (structural, handling, training, certification, etc.).
 
DenverTed
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:53 pm

I don't see why a flat bottom makes sense for cargo, but if a blended wing is a gain in efficiency in flight, maybe a flatter bottom is a gain where aircraft cruise at a few degrees nose up, which I assume is a gain over having the fuselage level in cruise.
Even if they did a 180" inside circle, 90" is the middle, if the floor of the passenger cabin is 30" below that is 60", then take off 6" for the floor cavity and 6" for the flat floor of the cargo hold, that's only 48" left anyway.
If Boeing uses the 777x seat and aisle width, it would be 19.33 x 9 + 3 =177" interior width. So shave another 1.5" off cargo height room.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat Feb 08, 2020 8:52 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:
Kevlar does a pretty good job at stopping bullets at a pretty light weight. Before that it was steel plates (The Good, The Bad and The Ugly).


Kevlar only works because it's used in a layering and lamination fashion, with layers of Kevlar all at different orientations built up. This creates almost a lamination effect (think plyboard) where a weak material is built up and made successively stronger. As a medieval arms and armor enthusiast, the basic principle dates back thousands of years with layers of materials (steel, leather, maille, even thick cloth) used in that fashion. Kevlar on its own isn't a magical material - its how it's applied.

Oh, and Kevlar has serious problems stopping medieval weapons. A bodkin point or a rondel dagger will go right through a Kevlar vest precisely because of the way it's layered and its fibrous nature. Again, it isn't a wonder material. Its all in how it's used, applied, layered. I would imagine that the materials used to build aircraft are quite the same!


Neat information

I was just using Kevlar vs Steel for stopping bullets as a an example of how technology has progressed and resulting in something able to do the same thing at much lighter weight.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sat Feb 08, 2020 8:57 pm

LH707330 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Okay so it’s impossible to know but you would think Boeing would be able to do the FEA work to figure it out. Computers aren’t getting slower and you can iterate faster and faster.



This summed the most appropriate thing to post right now...

https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ha ha, I was just thinking about this one as well.

The Kelly Johnson reference is funny: he was effective because he stayed focused and didn't let this type of nonsense impact the project. A 7W seems risky given the weight penalty.


But the weight penalty may be immaterial. I showed up thread that as an 7W NMA could be 20% shorter than a 6W - A carbon tubed 7W could be 50% heavier per meter of fuselage length vs an Aluminum 6W and still be the same weight. Plus you could have shorter(lighter gear) as less rotation problems.

Even if the two were in Carbon it seems like for an A320 capacity aircraft the weight penalty may only be 1,000 KG's. So an NMA size 1,500 KG. With something with a MTOW of 125-145T that's not that significant.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat Feb 08, 2020 8:58 pm

The 767 and A300 were designed for more cargo. Go for a little less cargo and 777x/787 standard seat and aisle widths, and there are some savings. The A300 at 222" could be 205" for 8% savings in fuselage weight and drag, the 767 at 202.5" could be 186" for 9% savings.

From another perspective if the A321 at 100t and new engines can do what a 757 does at 115t, if you could scale up an A321 by 15% , then think of that capability over the A321xlr, more range or more pax with the same range. And that is just with an Al wing, with a carbon wing should be a capable aircraft at 115t and modern engines and weight reduction.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3885
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:41 pm

Just think. For all the talk about NSA and nma, the best option for Boeing would have been to buy out the c series instead of trying to destroy bombardier. Instead, a220 will be killing a320 as an airbus program.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:13 am

Stitch wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The decision would have to be made in 2006 to 2008 to launch a 737 replacement program, but that was exactly when they did the 787. But in the end they underestimated the GTF as a viable product, which was the main fault in judgement.


Well Boeing did launch a serious 737 Replacement Study in the mid-2000s and I doubt they underestimated the GTF as a viable product for that program.

It was pretty clear from the outset that the GTF was not going to work for the 737 due to lack of ground clearance. Pratt believed they could (somehow) mount it on the 737 even with the 80 inch fan, but it would have required the nacelle to be positioned even more...precariously...than the LEAP. So GTF probably really impacted the MAX's handling characteristics and with Boeing being pressured by at least one major customer to minimize training and handling differences between MAX and the Next Generation, the GTF was effectively a non-starter on the MAX from multiple standpoints (structural, handling, training, certification, etc.).


I think they did underestimate the GTF by only looking if it would work on a 737, but not fully seeing the risk is poses when mounted on the A320. At the time the LEAP was still only known as the LEAP56 which was thought to be a very big PiP and not a totally new engine with a much larger diameter. But that was what GE needed to match the GTF. Imho when seeing that the GTF fits under the A320 but not under the 737, was exactly the time when they should have launched a replacement for the 737.
 
Guillaume787
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:02 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:10 pm

I don’t know if this has been posted but according to a FlightGlobal article, the 787-3 might be reborn as the NMA. I know this idea has been discussed here before and I think it would make sense given its relatively low development costs and timeline to bring it to market. Thoughts?

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 89.article
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13584
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:27 pm

Guillaume787 wrote:
I don’t know if this has been posted but according to a FlightGlobal article, the 787-3 might be reborn as the NMA. I know this idea has been discussed here before and I think it would make sense given its relatively low development costs and timeline to bring it to market. Thoughts?

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 89.article


I respect Schonland a lot, but this seems a real bad idea. Shave a few tons of a 787-3, increase range & it still is as expensive as a 787-8. And twice as heavy and costly as a A321XLR..

A 767-8 sounds as half smart because it weigh 30t less as a 787 or A330 and isn't twice as costly. But a short range 787.. don't waste brainhours on that.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
FlyingBlueKLM
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:52 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:38 pm

keesje wrote:
Guillaume787 wrote:
I don’t know if this has been posted but according to a FlightGlobal article, the 787-3 might be reborn as the NMA. I know this idea has been discussed here before and I think it would make sense given its relatively low development costs and timeline to bring it to market. Thoughts?

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 89.article


I respect Schonland a lot, but this seems a real bad idea. Shave a few tons of a 787-3, increase range & it still is as expensive as a 787-8. And twice as heavy and costly as a A321XLR..

A 767-8 sounds as half smart because it weigh 30t less as a 787 or A330 and isn't twice as costly. But a short range 787.. don't waste brainhours on that.

Image


I agree with you.

And a tweaked 787-3 branded as the NMA isn’t a new plane, then it wouldn’t be the NMA, but it would be the TMA (Tweaked Midsize Airplane) :D
NL: Bij de landing is full reverse het leukst!

EN: Full reverse is the best at touchdown!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9749
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:43 pm

Would it use the same assembly line as the current 787's, the same cockpit set up, adjusted / reduce number of fuse barrel sections to reduce weight, different wing / body joint to further reduce weight, different composite wing, same suppliers?
It can generate a lot of questions as long as they are not looking at a simple shrink, using as much 787 production facilities / suppliers does reduce cost and risk to make the a/c purchase price cheaper.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:08 pm

PepeTheFrog wrote:
TObound wrote:
It's always been amazing to me that that there's a 2 year gap in backlog between the NEO and MAX. Customers are willing to fly CEOs and NGs for 2 more years to get a NEO, rather than buy the MAX. That says a lot.

I wouldn't go so far as to say 30% marketshare. Current production rates imply something like a 55/45 split.


Due to the MAX grounding and slow production ramp up once the jet is recertified, the gap will become 3 to 4 years. According to the slide at https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 8485532672 Boeing won't hit rate 60 before 2023.


the accumulated "unavailable production" should come to 1200..1400 frames.
3.5+ years to ramp up from zero, the unproduced frames from 2019's reduced production ..
3.5 years linear rate to 63 would come out to 1300 frames. add the missing frames from 2019.

Boeing delivery horizon for MAX is now as far out as Airbus NEO.
Up to now a sales argument for MAX was earlier delivery. Gone.
Murphy is an optimist
 
FlyingBlueKLM
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:52 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:18 pm

par13del wrote:
Would it use the same assembly line as the current 787's, the same cockpit set up, adjusted / reduce number of fuse barrel sections to reduce weight, different wing / body joint to further reduce weight, different composite wing, same suppliers?
It can generate a lot of questions as long as they are not looking at a simple shrink, using as much 787 production facilities / suppliers does reduce cost and risk to make the a/c purchase price cheaper.


I’m also wondering about that. As far as I know they cancelled the 787-3 because it was too small for the 787 body. If Boeing would use the 787-3 as the ‘new’ NMA, they'd better do it in a non-cost cutting way.

I don’t think the NMA will be a reborn 787-3, it would most likely be a totally new plane in my opinion.
NL: Bij de landing is full reverse het leukst!

EN: Full reverse is the best at touchdown!
 
WIederling
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:30 pm

morrisond wrote:
Potenitally cheaper to manufacture with the right automation as a lot less labour. At least that is what Boeing has been spouting for some time.


Boeing has been spouting a lot about upcoming technology.
Usually via PR people that have zit understanding of the topic
beyond painting new excesses in potential profits.

Stepping back from their 777 fuselage automation project
is a good hint.

IMU you get more out of automation as an aid to a human workforce
than as replacement of human workforce. ( I know, waxing philosophic here. )
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:34 pm

FlyingBlueKLM wrote:
As far as I know they cancelled the 787-3 because it was too small for the 787 body. If Boeing would use the 787-3 as the ‘new’ NMA, they'd better do it in a non-cost cutting way.


787-3 was a 787-8 with clipped wings and maybe some lightened structure.
Primary purpose was fitting 787 into 767 gates for Japanese carriers.
Use case was "city2city jumping around Japan" i.e. rather short range use.
Murphy is an optimist
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:59 pm

morrisond wrote:
How is that Analysis coming comparing an 170" H x 186"W (and Stitch is right - it could be narrower) - 20' shorter NMA to an A320 tube coming?


I have completed the 6 sets of data and put them in a new thread in tech/ops.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1440759
You'll see from the layout that it wont go narrower.

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18268
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:34 pm

FlyingBlueKLM wrote:
I’m also wondering about that. As far as I know they cancelled the 787-3 because it was too small for the 787 body.


The 787-3 fuselage was identical to the 787-8, just with slightly smaller wings. Other than different wingtip treatment, it was otherwise identical to the -8. In other words, it was not particularly optimised for different missions than the -8. It offered no benefit over the -8 on anything but routes of a couple of hundred nm. In the end, the -8 offered airlines more flexibility for only a minor disadvantage on the very shortest of routes. The -3 was stillborn.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26711
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:18 pm

seahawk wrote:
I think they did underestimate the GTF by only looking if it would work on a 737, but not fully seeing the risk is poses when mounted on the A320. At the time the LEAP was still only known as the LEAP56 which was thought to be a very big PiP and not a totally new engine with a much larger diameter. But that was what GE needed to match the GTF. Imho when seeing that the GTF fits under the A320 but not under the 737, was exactly the time when they should have launched a replacement for the 737.


Well Boeing tried to launch a replacement for the 737, but the airlines refused to wait for it when they could get A320neos years earlier and save millions in fuel bills (considering Jet-A was quickly reaching peak pricing). I also think airlines didn't see the 737RS Boeing could have put forward then as superior to the A320neo, but instead saw it as an equivalent frame. And as such they were likely resistant to paying more than an A320neo for it, but Boeing would have had to charge more to cover the R&D and FAL costs.

So as with the NMA today, a decade ago Boeing could not close the business case for a 737RS. But they could close one for (yet another) update to the 737 to serve as a stop-gap until they could close the business case for a 737RS a couple of decades down the road.
 
kurtverbose
Posts: 575
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:44 am

morrisond wrote:
Kevlar does a pretty good job at stopping bullets at a pretty light weight. Before that it was steel plates (The Good, The Bad and The Ugly).


Wrong Spaghetti Western. That was 'A Fistful of Dollars'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evd_WJA0gvY
 
planecane
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will "start with a clean sheet of paper again"

Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:15 am

scbriml wrote:
FlyingBlueKLM wrote:
I’m also wondering about that. As far as I know they cancelled the 787-3 because it was too small for the 787 body.


The 787-3 fuselage was identical to the 787-8, just with slightly smaller wings. Other than different wingtip treatment, it was otherwise identical to the -8. In other words, it was not particularly optimised for different missions than the -8. It offered no benefit over the -8 on anything but routes of a couple of hundred nm. In the end, the -8 offered airlines more flexibility for only a minor disadvantage on the very shortest of routes. The -3 was stillborn.


That was what the 787-3 ended up being. The original 787-3 concept actually had a different wing and other changes to make it more optimized for short haul. How much better the original 787-3 would have been on short haul I don't know. It certainly wouldn't be cost competitive with a narrowbody.
 
planecane
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:19 am

morrisond wrote:

They figured out how to build an A-12/SR-71 back in the 1960's with Slide Rulers and a very small team - so hundred's/thousand's with very advanced computers can't figure out how to build a wider than taller fuselage using mush more advanced materials and something they may have been working on for at least 12-13 years? You would have to guess they would have built one or two prototype cross sections in that time.



The old engineering adage applies here. "Given enough time and enough money, anything is possible."

I don't think the issue is that they "can't" figure out how to build it. The issue is that they can't or haven't figured out how to build it cheaply enough. If they really wanted to, I'm sure they could make a one off prototype in a few months.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:26 am

kurtverbose wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Kevlar does a pretty good job at stopping bullets at a pretty light weight. Before that it was steel plates (The Good, The Bad and The Ugly).


Wrong Spaghetti Western. That was 'A Fistful of Dollars'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evd_WJA0gvY


Yes it was - Your memory is better than mine. I love all those films. Classic Clint
 
morrisond
Posts: 2358
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO: NMA will

Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:34 am

planecane wrote:
morrisond wrote:

They figured out how to build an A-12/SR-71 back in the 1960's with Slide Rulers and a very small team - so hundred's/thousand's with very advanced computers can't figure out how to build a wider than taller fuselage using mush more advanced materials and something they may have been working on for at least 12-13 years? You would have to guess they would have built one or two prototype cross sections in that time.



The old engineering adage applies here. "Given enough time and enough money, anything is possible."

I don't think the issue is that they "can't" figure out how to build it. The issue is that they can't or haven't figured out how to build it cheaply enough. If they really wanted to, I'm sure they could make a one off prototype in a few months.


I think it was pretty clear that before MAX grounding - the Launch was pretty imminent and we would have been looking at full industrial launch by now after Authority to offer sometime last spring. I believe they had figured it out.

I think that back in 2011 (or thereabouts) they had figured out the engineering to build the Ovalish cross section for the NSA as well (but it might have been more of a true oval) they just hadn't figured out how to build it cheaply enough hence we got the MAX.

I think what they had done in the intervening 9 years was to evolve the shape to Ostrower's Child's making it simpler and figured out the production system.

I still suspect we will still see the same NMA shape that would have been offered last year (maybe a touch longer to take into account A322)- albeit with a more advanced control system which they are doing the work on right now to make sure the frame can accommodate it and figure out what they have to charge for it.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos