Stitch wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

I have yet to understand, why people believe that for the first time in modern aviation history, an aircraft design will be actively hampered by choosing comfort over highest possible efficiency by its designer.

morrisond wrote:

Of course ignoring the 350XWB. Or the 380.

Airbus designs around comfort, but they do allow airline customers to sacrifice comfort for greater efficiency with the A330, A350 and A380 by adding in one extra seat per row.

Sure if sub 17" seats are considered acceptable on the A330- 9W /A350- 10W- no idea what 11W would be on the A380.

morrisond wrote:

amdiesen wrote:

:old:

CRJockey wrote:

I have yet to understand, why people believe that for the first time in modern aviation history, an aircraft design will be actively hampered by choosing comfort over highest possible efficiency by its designer.

an appropriate admonishment.

Not when it is wrong - see my A350XWB and 380 comment above. One can argue that the most optimal recent clean sheet aircraft design is the 787. It basically perfectly fits 9W and LD3's. Everything else is too large/wide for the number of seats they are carrying. Unless Airlines en masse decide 16" seats are okay in an A350 - which may happen. That makes me cringe thinking about that.

Even the 777X seems way too heavy for what it actually can do.

I would expect a 2x3x2 sized just big enough to fit 737/787 seat width, and if they do do 3x3 (which I actually agreed that may be what they do a few months back as I thought Boeing was losing all their nerve to push boundaries- until 2x3x2 seems to have come back to forefront in the AVWeek article) with two different sets of wings it won't be something with an extra wide middle aisle - that is wasted space. However if you start doing the math especially on a two class aircraft - the double circle 2x3x2 actually seems more space efficient than a comparable capacity 3x3 - you basically get the extra aisle for free. It's not 2 aisles the same length as a 1x or necessarily the same width - it's too shorter aisles that saves some plus you get extra width for galleys/lavs in the ends which saves some and your containers can hold 50% more volume. In terms of width - you could really push the limits in the back in Y and maybe go with 17" vs 19" on the A320 saving a bit as well.

You get to an NMA width of 187" just by taking one seat out of each seat set in an 777X (244"-3x19 = 187"). 777X has 18" Aisles according to the ACAP - take 2" off for 17" aisles takes you to 185" and you should be able to use at least 1" thinner walls on an 120-150T NMA vs 350T 777X and that takes you down to about 183". All the calcs I was doing were at 186".

Your points about the market growing a lot are very valid. What will the average single aisle capacity need to be by 2040 in the middle of the next clean sheets lifetime (if launched in the next year or two)? Probably a lot more than the optimal 170-180ish seats today. NSA could launch with its smallest variant at 200 seats.

Doing the math on how many square feet are used by aisles in that equivalent Y capacity 3x3 vs 2x3x2 at 19" W for 1X 17" W for the 2X and its about 54%. It's better if you do a two class as the equivalent cabin length would be less with 2x2x2 in the front vs 2x2, or 1x1x1 sleepers vs 1x1 sleepers.

Taking one seat out would allow you to have 19"/6 = 3.16" or about 20.5" seats in the front which could be acceptable for Domestic Business Class.

744SPX wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The MOM gap (gross) is assumed to be a gap in the market that needs filling however it is a gap that exists in the area between effective and optimal single aisle and twin aisle solutions and the aircraft that could fill that gap has to be so hamstrung by the configuration that it is better served by those optimised outside of that gap.

Fred
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This. which is why NSA/NMA may end up sharing a common single aisle fuesalage/cockpit/systems, with differences in wing, gear, tail and engine thrust to meet the different missions.

If they do go that route, I think 2-2-2 could be a real possibility.

Can't do 2-2-2 in a single aisle. I'm suggesting single aisle for both purposes... 3x3...

JonesNL wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

737 program will make money, less of it but it will end in a net positive. 787 will be tight as with all numbers staying the same they would need to deliver another 900 to finish the deferred production cost. Maybe a future NEO will make it possible. But the main problem I see is that the NMA (which they can fund without much problem) will cannibalize the 787 program if it will be a twin aisle. The NMA would perform much better in sub 5000nm stages and thus limiting the market of the 787. Boeing really has tough strategical decisions to make this decade...

Compared to what I noted in my response to morrisond, 900 seems like a respectable ballpark estimate for the present situation ($17.8 million per aircraft), where the program will struggle at low rates and reduced margins for a few years before demand recovers and margins improve again.

Just to put that in context, if an NMA were to enter service and begin stealing 787 sales around 2030, then the average rate needed to stay ahead of that is 8 per month.

Boeing's interim market outlook this past summer proposed an average demand of 25 widebodies per month over that time frame, not including freighters. With the 787 and A350 expected to split the majority of that market, it looks to me like the market can turn out worse than forecast and the 787 still be able to finally account for those expenses.

That's not the important consideration though. What Boeing most wants to determine is whether the NMA would earn enough additional sales versus offering the 787 alone in order to be the more profitable strategy even after accounting for the lower number of 787 sales that would result.

The NMA would start stealing sales the moment it is introduced in the market, not from its EIS. 25 a month, based on previous market share split this means 10 for Airbus and 15 for Boeing. Pre COVID the production rate was 14x787 and 5x777. Even with an reduced output of 8x787 and 2x777 it will only have space for 5xNMA per month, which is not much. From an business case perspective I think cranking out 12x787 and 3x777x makes much more sense. So, do nothing or make the NMA a single aisle...

Yes and no on the stealing sales, but mostly no in the near term.

First of all, keep in mind that 25 is the average. If we just assume a simple linear growth from the current rates, then achieving that average means going from 15 per month to 35 per month in 2030. Actually, let me update the number I gave previously to include widebody freighters, because those actually are relevant for the widebody market as a whole.

- 2019 Global Widebody Production Rate: 35.5 per month
- Boeing CMO 10-year Production Forecast Average: 29.5 per month
- Current Global Production Rate Target: 15 per month
- Estimated 2030 Production Rate: 44 per month

Compared to the depressed current rates, that seems like explosive growth, but compared to 2019, it is only a 2% annual growth rate in widebody deliveries, and they are smaller aircraft on average than in 2019. Although 2019 saw a widebody glut, starting out in an under-production situation compared to where the market is expected to head ultimately clears that glut and leaves room for some eventual growth.

Secondly, ordering an NMA in 2023 doesn't let an airline meet passenger demand before roughly 2030. Conservative airlines will accept that - holding back on 787 orders in favor of waiting for the cheaper NMA, knowing they will miss out on a few years of revenue growth, but minimizing their risk. Aggressive airlines will order the aircraft available to meet anticipated growth. One or the other will prove to have been the preferable course of action depending how strong the market growth really is.

Additionally, I agree with others that Boeing would likely be willing to trim the 787 family to the -9 and -10 versions if and when an NMA eats too much into the 787-8 market.

So, to get back to the tangent of whether Boeing can finish paying back the 787 deferred production costs even after an NMA launch, I think yes. They need perhaps 8 or so 787's per month average to finish before the NMA arrives, but they expect (assuming 40% of the widebody market through 2030) to average around 12 x 787's per month. The -9 and -10 will continue selling even if at a slower pace after the NMA arrives, hopefully taking the program to an ultimately profitable position.

Keep in mind though, the lower rates now may push the timeline to see that profit out far enough that Boeing could still take a write down on the 787, because the market growth is not certain enough for the accounting requirements.

iamlucky13 wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Compared to what I noted in my response to morrisond, 900 seems like a respectable ballpark estimate for the present situation ($17.8 million per aircraft), where the program will struggle at low rates and reduced margins for a few years before demand recovers and margins improve again.

Just to put that in context, if an NMA were to enter service and begin stealing 787 sales around 2030, then the average rate needed to stay ahead of that is 8 per month.

Boeing's interim market outlook this past summer proposed an average demand of 25 widebodies per month over that time frame, not including freighters. With the 787 and A350 expected to split the majority of that market, it looks to me like the market can turn out worse than forecast and the 787 still be able to finally account for those expenses.

That's not the important consideration though. What Boeing most wants to determine is whether the NMA would earn enough additional sales versus offering the 787 alone in order to be the more profitable strategy even after accounting for the lower number of 787 sales that would result.

The NMA would start stealing sales the moment it is introduced in the market, not from its EIS. 25 a month, based on previous market share split this means 10 for Airbus and 15 for Boeing. Pre COVID the production rate was 14x787 and 5x777. Even with an reduced output of 8x787 and 2x777 it will only have space for 5xNMA per month, which is not much. From an business case perspective I think cranking out 12x787 and 3x777x makes much more sense. So, do nothing or make the NMA a single aisle...

Yes and no on the stealing sales, but mostly no in the near term.

First of all, keep in mind that 25 is the average. If we just assume a simple linear growth from the current rates, then achieving that average means going from 15 per month to 35 per month in 2030. Actually, let me update the number I gave previously to include widebody freighters, because those actually are relevant for the widebody market as a whole.

- 2019 Global Widebody Production Rate: 35.5 per month
- Boeing CMO 10-year Production Forecast Average: 29.5 per month
- Current Global Production Rate Target: 15 per month
- Estimated 2030 Production Rate: 44 per month

Compared to the depressed current rates, that seems like explosive growth, but compared to 2019, it is only a 2% annual growth rate in widebody deliveries, and they are smaller aircraft on average than in 2019. Although 2019 saw a widebody glut, starting out in an under-production situation compared to where the market is expected to head ultimately clears that glut and leaves room for some eventual growth.

Secondly, ordering an NMA in 2023 doesn't let an airline meet passenger demand before roughly 2030. Conservative airlines will accept that - holding back on 787 orders in favor of waiting for the cheaper NMA, knowing they will miss out on a few years of revenue growth, but minimizing their risk. Aggressive airlines will order the aircraft available to meet anticipated growth. One or the other will prove to have been the preferable course of action depending how strong the market growth really is.

Additionally, I agree with others that Boeing would likely be willing to trim the 787 family to the -9 and -10 versions if and when an NMA eats too much into the 787-8 market.

So, to get back to the tangent of whether Boeing can finish paying back the 787 deferred production costs even after an NMA launch, I think yes. They need perhaps 8 or so 787's per month average to finish before the NMA arrives, but they expect (assuming 40% of the widebody market through 2030) to average around 12 x 787's per month. The -9 and -10 will continue selling even if at a slower pace after the NMA arrives, hopefully taking the program to an ultimately profitable position.

Keep in mind though, the lower rates now may push the timeline to see that profit out far enough that Boeing could still take a write down on the 787, because the market growth is not certain enough for the accounting requirements.

Not sure if sacrificing the 787 for the NMA makes financial sense. It’s almost like Osbourning your own product.

I am also not certain we are in underproduction in 2020, 21 and 22 for WB. Hundreds of WB’s are parked and WB demand is expected to recover earliest 2027-28. 45/m in 2030 looks far fetched.

morrisond wrote:

amdiesen wrote:

:old:

CRJockey wrote:

I have yet to understand, why people believe that for the first time in modern aviation history, an aircraft design will be actively hampered by choosing comfort over highest possible efficiency by its designer.

an appropriate admonishment.

Not when it is wrong - see my A350XWB and 380 comment above. One can argue that the most optimal recent clean sheet aircraft design is the 787. It basically perfectly fits 9W and LD3's. Everything else is too large/wide for the number of seats they are carrying. Unless Airlines en masse decide 16" seats are okay in an A350 - which may happen. That makes me cringe thinking about that.

Even the 777X seems way too heavy for what it actually can do.

I would expect a 2x3x2 sized just big enough to fit 737/787 seat width, and if they do do 3x3 (which I actually agreed that may be what they do a few months back as I thought Boeing was losing all their nerve to push boundaries- until 2x3x2 seems to have come back to forefront in the AVWeek article) with two different sets of wings it won't be something with an extra wide middle aisle - that is wasted space. However if you start doing the math especially on a two class aircraft - the double circle 2x3x2 actually seems more space efficient than a comparable capacity 3x3 - you basically get the extra aisle for free. It's not 2 aisles the same length as a 1x or necessarily the same width - it's too shorter aisles that saves some plus you get extra width for galleys/lavs in the ends which saves some and your containers can hold 50% more volume. In terms of width - you could really push the limits in the back in Y and maybe go with 17" vs 19" on the A320 saving a bit as well.

You get to an NMA width of 187" just by taking one seat out of each seat set in an 777X (244"-3x19 = 187"). 777X has 18" Aisles according to the ACAP - take 2" off for 17" aisles takes you to 185" and you should be able to use at least 1" thinner walls on an 120-150T NMA vs 350T 777X and that takes you down to about 183". All the calcs I was doing were at 186".

Your points about the market growing a lot are very valid. What will the average single aisle capacity need to be by 2040 in the middle of the next clean sheets lifetime (if launched in the next year or two)? Probably a lot more than the optimal 170-180ish seats today. NSA could launch with its smallest variant at 200 seats.

Totally correct, if you ignore the weight increases of an off round shape and the greater width and put smaller seats in then measure on a per seat basis then indeed you can get it to look good.

I have made a thread that show the inherent capability/weight issues that are so wilfully being ignored.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1457749

Amdiesen: there’s certainly an element of “my team” going on here, “Boeing know something we don’t” smells very much of “we don’t know why but it’s all part of gods plan”.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Amdiesen: there’s certainly an element of “my team” going on here, “Boeing know something we don’t” smells very much of “we don’t know why but it’s all part of gods plan”.

nice, and spot on comparison.

CRJockey wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Amdiesen: there’s certainly an element of “my team” going on here, “Boeing know something we don’t” smells very much of “we don’t know why but it’s all part of gods plan”.

nice, and spot on comparison.

Quite unnecessary.

Cheap, really.

Morris has argued from his calculations.
Which have yet to be really refuted (except that the eccentric shape will presumably involve more strengthening and therefore more weight,).

Billy

CRJockey wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Amdiesen: there’s certainly an element of “my team” going on here, “Boeing know something we don’t” smells very much of “we don’t know why but it’s all part of gods plan”.

nice, and spot on comparison.

All Boeing said and knows was, that they target the A321neo range and capacity area with their new design. They dont know yet how as nothing has been published. All we do here is speculate how they will do that.

Now of course as a new design it has to be more efficient and also economical then the A321 on the entirety of its mission profile, because if it is not then you lose sales. So Boeing is designing an aircraft that can do routes between 100nm and 4500nm more economical for airlines as the A321 now and also possible future iterations.

If it is more expensife to produce than the A321 it will have to have more capability but still be able to do the A321 job or it will not sell enough vs the A321. That is why the business case is so hard. Even harder because it will also eat sales from the 737 and 787. Though thing but until EIS in the early 2030s things will change so we can specilate for another 2-3 years until Boeing knows if and what they can launch.

morrisond wrote:

And again Boeing must know something you don't.

It is not what they know ( or not )

It is about what is breathing down their neck.

inserting fake and or false info works. ( look around you

Boeing has high motivation to sucking energy from the A321XLRYBAZ product.
The MOM product idea was one way of working that. ( unsuccessfully IMU just like not being able to deflate the NEO offer)
A product in a space nobody dared to go before and
that only Boeing could homestead by leveraging their
singularly innovative core capabilities. ( .. sitting in the PR department

Boeing patents touching on flat oval fuselages seem to have been let to lapse, abandoned.
Says all about that solution space.

brindabella wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Amdiesen: there’s certainly an element of “my team” going on here, “Boeing know something we don’t” smells very much of “we don’t know why but it’s all part of gods plan”.

nice, and spot on comparison.

Quite unnecessary.

Cheap, really.

Morris has argued from his calculations.
Which have yet to be really refuted (except that the eccentric shape will presumably involve more strengthening and therefore more weight,).

Billy

Thank you.

If it is the Ostrowers Double Circle - the design may not have issues to the same degree as a true Elipse. As Fred has rightfully pointed out a True Elipse would put the Floor in Compression vs tension.

However if the Top part of the Fuselage was Circular with slightly pinched sides (which works nicely to have flatter walls inside a cabin) like an A350 this would put the floor in tension.

The flatter circular floor would want to put it in compression - however you are dealing with less of a circumference on the bottom so would that not at least balance out the top?

Plus due to the shape of the Cargo hold you could have support struts on the side helping to support the lower skin. Then of course at Altitude you would have the pressure of air generating force on the belly - which I would guess would be more than the pressure differential inside the plane vs outside.

Then you also may get a small bit of extra lift from that flatter belly - meaning smaller lifting surfaces- it also does not have to be a perfect curve - it could be even flatter below the container.

I would have to assume CFD could be used to figure out an optimal shape so we finally move past Circular cross sections.

Some of those Future concepts A&B have put out are much flatter on the bottom and are reported to have exceptional aero.

Finally go look at that other thread. For some reason they are making the ends of the fuselage a good 15' longer - 6X the increase in width. That means even more space in the galleys - or the cabin can encroach more into the ends meaning a shorter overall aircraft.

We are basically talking about a Single Aisle that has the same fuselage height is bulged out on the sides by maybe 13-14" on each side. That does not equate to a 15' increase in length. No wonder they are insisting it is so much heavier.

WIederling wrote:

morrisond wrote:

And again Boeing must know something you don't.

It is not what they know ( or not )

It is about what is breathing down their neck.

inserting fake and or false info works. ( look around you

Boeing has high motivation to sucking energy from the A321XLRYBAZ product.
The MOM product idea was one way of working that. ( unsuccessfully IMU just like not being able to deflate the NEO offer)
A product in a space nobody dared to go before and
that only Boeing could homestead by leveraging their
singularly innovative core capabilities. ( .. sitting in the PR department

Boeing patents touching on flat oval fuselages seem to have been let to lapse, abandoned.
Says all about that solution space.

Are you accusing me of lying? (Fake or False info)

Yes they let Oval lapse as it probably is not the right solution. That is why they seemed to moved on to the much more sensible Double Circle/Ostrowers Child.

morrisond wrote:

WIederling wrote:

morrisond wrote:

And again Boeing must know something you don't.

It is not what they know ( or not )

It is about what is breathing down their neck.

inserting fake and or false info works. ( look around you

Boeing has high motivation to sucking energy from the A321XLRYBAZ product.
The MOM product idea was one way of working that. ( unsuccessfully IMU just like not being able to deflate the NEO offer)
A product in a space nobody dared to go before and
that only Boeing could homestead by leveraging their
singularly innovative core capabilities. ( .. sitting in the PR department

Boeing patents touching on flat oval fuselages seem to have been let to lapse, abandoned.
Says all about that solution space.

Are you accusing me of lying? (Fake or False info)

Yes they let Oval lapse as it probably is not the right solution. That is why they seemed to moved on to the much more sensible Double Circle/Ostrowers Child.

Did Boeing confirm that they moved on to a double circle?

Too much speculation for my taste. The business case, size and requirements are debatable but not technological details that are just rumors but presented as facts.

morrisond wrote:

Are you accusing me of lying? (Fake or False info)

Hnn?
reading comprehension is asked here. the object was Boeing interaction with the public
and not your guesswork.

and then
Why should I.
I just pointed out that your interpretation might be wrong.

Yes they let Oval lapse as it probably is not the right solution. That is why they seemed to moved on to the much more sensible Double Circle/Ostrowers Child.

tomayto, tomahto
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tomayto,_tomahto

flat oval or double circle with negative centers distance :: similar solutions that put the floor into a weighty compression mode.
( actually the flat oval concept would be realized as some double( or tripple) circle segment arrangement.)

Which is not a problem using CFRPs.

morrisond wrote:

If it is the Ostrowers Double Circle - the design may not have issues to the same degree as a true Elipse. As Fred has rightfully pointed out a True Elipse would put the Floor in Compression vs tension.

However if the Top part of the Fuselage was Circular with slightly pinched sides (which works nicely to have flatter walls inside a cabin) like an A350 this would put the floor in tension.

The flatter circular floor would want to put it in compression - however you are dealing with less of a circumference on the bottom so would that not at least balance out the top?

No, the radius of both the upper and lower lobes is higher than that which would be made by taking a circle of the same perimeter as that made by the two sections. The internal pressure will try to overcome the forces want to turn the skin to its lower energy state, a circle. If the distance between the two points would be closer to each other when the shape with the same perimeter is a circle then the floor will be in tension.

Have you drawn what you are proposing? What is the radius of each section? What is the perimeter of the whole? I have.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Noshow wrote:

Too much speculation for my taste. The business case, size and requirements are debatable but not technological details that are just rumors but presented as facts.

I guess you don't understand the meaning of "If" as in "If it is the Ostrowers Double Circle."

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

If it is the Ostrowers Double Circle - the design may not have issues to the same degree as a true Elipse. As Fred has rightfully pointed out a True Elipse would put the Floor in Compression vs tension.

However if the Top part of the Fuselage was Circular with slightly pinched sides (which works nicely to have flatter walls inside a cabin) like an A350 this would put the floor in tension.

The flatter circular floor would want to put it in compression - however you are dealing with less of a circumference on the bottom so would that not at least balance out the top?

No, the radius of both the upper and lower lobes is higher than that which would be made by taking a circle of the same perimeter as that made by the two sections. The internal pressure will try to overcome the forces want to turn the skin to its lower energy state, a circle. If the distance between the two points would be closer to each other when the shape with the same perimeter is a circle then the floor will be in tension.

Have you drawn what you are proposing? What is the radius of each section? What is the perimeter of the whole? I have.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That makes sense - but how much would you have to pinch it? There must be some configuration that works.

You would have to assume that Ostrower may have been privy to something we are not - how else would Boeing make it work?

morrisond wrote:

That makes sense - but how much would you have to pinch it? There must be some configuration that works.

I don’t know what you mean by pinch it?

In terms of configurations that work, do you mean a configuration that allows a 2-3-2 or one whereby a wider than tall configuration doesn’t put the floor in tension? Or a version of the ostrower double circle that allows the system to work?

morrisond wrote:

You would have to assume that Ostrower may have been privy to something we are not - how else would Boeing make it work?

Yesterday my 4yr old asked me if we have any ice cream, when I replied “no”, she then asked “well then what am I going to have with the cake”. The thing is, we also had no cake...

The assumption being that Boeing are going to make this work?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Given what the CEO just said, either Boeing is stupid or desperate or devious, or they are not starting at the same tech level.

Somehow Airbus managed to sell a draggier airplane. As you write they made up for it via aerodynamics, propulsion, etc. Add to that avionics advancements, preventative maintenance, presumably all new cockpit technology, low cost manufacturing, and probably a few other things we're not being told about and I think we can see how Boeing can come up with a compelling product that airlines will buy.

Yes, absolutely. At a newer tech level Boeing can make an aircraft that has similar costs to what airbus can make with their current level, the issue is that the fundamental principles driving the choice of identical tech level twin aisle vs single aisle that Boeing must make.

The MOM gap (gross) is assumed to be a gap in the market that needs filling however it is a gap that exists in the area between effective and optimal single aisle and twin aisle solutions and the aircraft that could fill that gap has to be so hamstrung by the configuration that it is better served by those optimised outside of that gap.

There is an optimal solution (matching pressure dominated to bending dominated) between 5 and 6 abreast but as the number of seats abreast is ordinal we must ‘settle’ on one that fits. If going from 6 to 7 was the same as going from 5 to 6 then then the optimal solution would be somewhat of a similar increase however as the regulations require no sets of 4 seats together at the window then the addition of the aisle means that the optimal solution is shifted somewhat upward. The large gap between the optimal solutions for 6 abreast and 7 abreast means that aircraft covering this ‘zone’ of capacity have a greater portion away from optimal.

I'm not dismissing optimal physics, but would suggest there is a need for market differentiation, a word Calhoun seems to use frequently.

The MOM gap may not be attractive because of its absolute size, but because it's a market Boeing feels it can access and one where it can provide value and differentiation.

flipdewaf wrote:

“Boeing know something we don’t” smells very much of “we don’t know why but it’s all part of gods plan”.

The flip side of this is "I know everything Boeing knows through college level physics and a well constructed spreadsheet".

If some people believe this that's fine, but I don't.

Noshow wrote:

Too much speculation for my taste. The business case, size and requirements are debatable but not technological details that are just rumors but presented as facts.

Things are being presented as suppositions not facts.

Feel free to walk away when the level of speculation is uncomfortable.

WIederling wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Are you accusing me of lying? (Fake or False info)

Hnn?
reading comprehension is asked here. the object was Boeing interaction with the public
and not your guesswork.

and then
Why should I.
I just pointed out that your interpretation might be wrong.

Yes they let Oval lapse as it probably is not the right solution. That is why they seemed to moved on to the much more sensible Double Circle/Ostrowers Child.

tomayto, tomahto
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tomayto,_tomahto

flat oval or double circle with negative centers distance :: similar solutions that put the floor into a weighty compression mode.
( actually the flat oval concept would be realized as some double( or tripple) circle segment arrangement.)

You know what you wrote.

What is that above - Haiku?

Revelation wrote:

I'm not dismissing optimal physics, but would suggest there is a need for market differentiation, a word Calhoun seems to use frequently.

He may say it a lot but it’s clear that the civil air transport market is a mature , almost completely fungible one. Would a company say there needed to be market differentiation if it weren’t needed? I’d wager they would.

Revelation wrote:

The MOM gap may not be attractive

lol, don’t google it!

Revelation wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

“Boeing know something we don’t” smells very much of “we don’t know why but it’s all part of gods plan”.

The flip side of this is "I know everything Boeing knows through college level physics and a well constructed spreadsheet".

If some people believe this that's fine, but I don't.

or indeed the more middle ground of “well known engineering principles that hold true for the vast majority of applications should be assumed to be applicable in those similar applications being proposed, outside of those standards it would be prudent to demonstrate the ability, mechanism or both for its acceptance in a mature industry where examples of true innovation is few and far between”

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I'm not dismissing optimal physics, but would suggest there is a need for market differentiation, a word Calhoun seems to use frequently.

He may say it a lot but it’s clear that the civil air transport market is a mature , almost completely fungible one. Would a company say there needed to be market differentiation if it weren’t needed? I’d wager they would.

Revelation wrote:

The MOM gap may not be attractive

lol, don’t google it!

Revelation wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

“Boeing know something we don’t” smells very much of “we don’t know why but it’s all part of gods plan”.

The flip side of this is "I know everything Boeing knows through college level physics and a well constructed spreadsheet".

If some people believe this that's fine, but I don't.

or indeed the more middle ground of “well known engineering principles that hold true for the vast majority of applications should be assumed to be applicable in those similar applications being proposed, outside of those standards it would be prudent to demonstrate the ability, mechanism or both for its acceptance in a mature industry where examples of true innovation is few and far between”

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sure - there will never be innovation again - new materials don't have different properties that can be taken advantage of and all those advanced designs that Boeing and Airbus have put out really have no aero advantage over tube and wings.

But of course as those spreadsheets can't handle anything other than round fuselage diameters I understand how you can believe the above.

flipdewaf wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I'm not dismissing optimal physics, but would suggest there is a need for market differentiation, a word Calhoun seems to use frequently.

He may say it a lot but it’s clear that the civil air transport market is a mature , almost completely fungible one. Would a company say there needed to be market differentiation if it weren’t needed? I’d wager they would.

Calhoun needs to find a solution for copying the "A321 solution space" without people noticing they buy an embelished copy.
( They actually worked that rather well with the 787. )

WIederling wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I'm not dismissing optimal physics, but would suggest there is a need for market differentiation, a word Calhoun seems to use frequently.

He may say it a lot but it’s clear that the civil air transport market is a mature , almost completely fungible one. Would a company say there needed to be market differentiation if it weren’t needed? I’d wager they would.

Calhoun needs to find a solution for copying the "A321 solution space" without people noticing they buy an embelished copy.
( They actually worked that rather well with the 787. )

And doing so while not looking like they copied the MC-21 either...

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I'm not dismissing optimal physics, but would suggest there is a need for market differentiation, a word Calhoun seems to use frequently.

He may say it a lot but it’s clear that the civil air transport market is a mature , almost completely fungible one. Would a company say there needed to be market differentiation if it weren’t needed? I’d wager they would.

Revelation wrote:

The MOM gap may not be attractive

lol, don’t google it!

Revelation wrote:

The flip side of this is "I know everything Boeing knows through college level physics and a well constructed spreadsheet".

If some people believe this that's fine, but I don't.

or indeed the more middle ground of “well known engineering principles that hold true for the vast majority of applications should be assumed to be applicable in those similar applications being proposed, outside of those standards it would be prudent to demonstrate the ability, mechanism or both for its acceptance in a mature industry where examples of true innovation is few and far between”

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sure - there will never be innovation again - new materials don't have different properties that can be taken advantage of and all those advanced designs that Boeing and Airbus have put out really have no aero advantage over tube and wings.

Quite the contrary, I think there will be innovation but I think that the innovation will not be as limited to one category I.e. widebodies. My claim isn’t that a new wide body cannot be as efficient as an existing aircraft but that two aircraft of identical technology level. I do not tend in these threads to compare existing aircraft to potential future aircraft as this is about the choices that Boeing (or any manufacturer for that matter) needs to make based on the current tech and that tech is universally applicable.

I personally am not willing to assume that there will be a specific technical innovation just because it makes a marketing idea work. I would love to be shown how this can work, I really genuinely would but I won’t take it on faith.

Most innovations that we see on civil aircraft originate and mature through the military sector and I believe that is the place to look for new tech that we will see. This is for several reasons including availability of resource (gov money) acceptance of project/program risk, back shifting of public money into civil aerospace being but a few. Obviously we aren’t going to be seeing ejector seats and sidewinders on the 797 but if we look back at.
1. The jet engine
2. Swept wings
3. Podded engines.
4. FBW
5. Large scale composite panels (Boeing JSF X-32)
5. Glueing things together quickly... T7A.

It is this last one where I believe that the advances in civil aviation will come particularly for Boeing. If we look at the oft trotted out ovoid patent whereby the pictures are what people gravitate to you can read the claims and see that it is around manufacture and assembly of panels.

morrisond wrote:

But of course as those spreadsheets can't handle anything other than round fuselage diameters I understand how you can believe the above.

Yes, indeed that it is true right now, but the model is currently 4-5days in, my aircraft performance planner model that I built took already existing weight estimation algorithm that I built during my masters degree and then added the aero part this second part took about a year and then automating it to fly routes took best part of another year (not full time of course). I will spend time updating as best I can to ensure that it is flexible for such scenarios.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A 7 abreast using CFRPs is highly efficient. You can go with 16,5" seats and 17" aisles as the roomier cabin configuration will make it still feel much better for the passengers. Which than leaves you with a meagre 3" wider fuselage than a A320. Using the double bubble concept your frontal area will be very competitive and the more compact fuselage reduces the wetted area below that of a single aisle design. For me that is an obvious solution and a plane that will revolutionize the industry by bringing single aisle operating costs to the wide bodies.

seahawk wrote:

A 7 abreast using CFRPs is highly efficient. You can go with 16,5" seats and 17" aisles as the roomier cabin configuration will make it still feel much better for the passengers. Which than leaves you with a meagre 3" wider fuselage than a A320. Using the double bubble concept your frontal area will be very competitive and the more compact fuselage reduces the wetted area below that of a single aisle design. For me that is an obvious solution and a plane that will revolutionize the industry by bringing single aisle operating costs to the wide bodies.

Apart from a structural efficiency standpoint of the double bubble, I am not convinced, how this meagre 3“ will create a widebody feeling. Just because there are two aisles?

Taxi645 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Calhoun needs to find a solution for copying the "A321 solution space" without people noticing they buy an embelished copy.
( They actually worked that rather well with the 787. )

And doing so while not looking like they copied the MC-21 either...

I do wonder if they intend to work their magic via the same SonicCruiser conversion to Dreamliner gambit.
All that flashy MOM, NMA, ... "taste" projected onto a me too product.

CRJockey wrote:

seahawk wrote:

A 7 abreast using CFRPs is highly efficient. You can go with 16,5" seats and 17" aisles as the roomier cabin configuration will make it still feel much better for the passengers. Which than leaves you with a meagre 3" wider fuselage than a A320. Using the double bubble concept your frontal area will be very competitive and the more compact fuselage reduces the wetted area below that of a single aisle design. For me that is an obvious solution and a plane that will revolutionize the industry by bringing single aisle operating costs to the wide bodies.

Apart from a structural efficiency standpoint of the double bubble, I am not convinced, how this meagre 3“ will create a widebody feeling. Just because there are two aisles?

You have only one middle seat and in a premium economy cabin you would have a highly comfortable 2-2-2.

seahawk wrote:

Which is not a problem using CFRPs.

CFRP is not magic dust and does not like compression.
it does not neutralize basic design constraints.

seahawk wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

seahawk wrote:

A 7 abreast using CFRPs is highly efficient. You can go with 16,5" seats and 17" aisles as the roomier cabin configuration will make it still feel much better for the passengers. Which than leaves you with a meagre 3" wider fuselage than a A320. Using the double bubble concept your frontal area will be very competitive and the more compact fuselage reduces the wetted area below that of a single aisle design. For me that is an obvious solution and a plane that will revolutionize the industry by bringing single aisle operating costs to the wide bodies.

Apart from a structural efficiency standpoint of the double bubble, I am not convinced, how this meagre 3“ will create a widebody feeling. Just because there are two aisles?

You have only one middle seat and in a premium economy cabin you would have a highly comfortable 2-2-2.

I do get that. And maybe it is about personal taste anyway, but I am unable to get this widebody feeling thing if seen from a seat configuration standpoint.
I do get it from a straightforward “room” feeling, though where I simply don’t think 7,5cm (3” in horrible units”) make a difference at all.

Anyway, I will be the first to admit I did not have the vision for a 2-2-2 configured plane as Morrisond (and his calculations) predicts. That is, if Boeing builds it AND customers chose to configure it that way.
At the moment though, I fail to see the breakthrough in economics/engineering for a non-circular design of that size.
And that is especially true if one of the major competitive drivers according to Boeing will be lean and clean manufacturing (cost). Usually in engineering, the more complex the geometry of parts, the costlier to produce.

We shall see and I might need to eat my own words.

WIederling wrote:

Taxi645 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Calhoun needs to find a solution for copying the "A321 solution space" without people noticing they buy an embelished copy.
( They actually worked that rather well with the 787. )

And doing so while not looking like they copied the MC-21 either...

I do wonder if they intend to work their magic via the same SonicCruiser conversion to Dreamliner gambit.
All that flashy MOM, NMA, ... "taste" projected onto a me too product.

Yes, they would receive quite some critique for that now on top of the current mess, but once they'd be pumping out 50+ a month in ten years time, no one would care anymore.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

He may say it a lot but it’s clear that the civil air transport market is a mature , almost completely fungible one. Would a company say there needed to be market differentiation if it weren’t needed? I’d wager they would.
lol, don’t google it!

or indeed the more middle ground of “well known engineering principles that hold true for the vast majority of applications should be assumed to be applicable in those similar applications being proposed, outside of those standards it would be prudent to demonstrate the ability, mechanism or both for its acceptance in a mature industry where examples of true innovation is few and far between”

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sure - there will never be innovation again - new materials don't have different properties that can be taken advantage of and all those advanced designs that Boeing and Airbus have put out really have no aero advantage over tube and wings.

Quite the contrary, I think there will be innovation but I think that the innovation will not be as limited to one category I.e. widebodies. My claim isn’t that a new wide body cannot be as efficient as an existing aircraft but that two aircraft of identical technology level. I do not tend in these threads to compare existing aircraft to potential future aircraft as this is about the choices that Boeing (or any manufacturer for that matter) needs to make based on the current tech and that tech is universally applicable.

I personally am not willing to assume that there will be a specific technical innovation just because it makes a marketing idea work. I would love to be shown how this can work, I really genuinely would but I won’t take it on faith.

Most innovations that we see on civil aircraft originate and mature through the military sector and I believe that is the place to look for new tech that we will see. This is for several reasons including availability of resource (gov money) acceptance of project/program risk, back shifting of public money into civil aerospace being but a few. Obviously we aren’t going to be seeing ejector seats and sidewinders on the 797 but if we look back at.
1. The jet engine
2. Swept wings
3. Podded engines.
4. FBW
5. Large scale composite panels (Boeing JSF X-32)
5. Glueing things together quickly... T7A.

It is this last one where I believe that the advances in civil aviation will come particularly for Boeing. If we look at the oft trotted out ovoid patent whereby the pictures are what people gravitate to you can read the claims and see that it is around manufacture and assembly of panels.

morrisond wrote:

But of course as those spreadsheets can't handle anything other than round fuselage diameters I understand how you can believe the above.

Yes, indeed that it is true right now, but the model is currently 4-5days in, my aircraft performance planner model that I built took already existing weight estimation algorithm that I built during my masters degree and then added the aero part this second part took about a year and then automating it to fly routes took best part of another year (not full time of course). I will spend time updating as best I can to ensure that it is flexible for such scenarios.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you. Yes 3x3 may be slightly more efficient than 2x3x2 but there are always tradeoffs.

I would agree on the manufacturing part and have said that multiple times. That is where the real advance could possibly come and could force Airbus to go clean sheet as Boeing may obtain a large manufacturing cost advantage as you would have to assume Boeing would use just one line or facility vs Airbus's current model.

Boeing's current Market outlook for the 2030's suggest something like 22,000 (Wow!) SA are needed in that decade. That is a massive market. However by that time out of the approximately 183 per month - I would not be surprised to see COMAC delivering 20-30 just on low cost alone (I would have assume COMAC will not care about profit at all and will price to take share) to their partner nations (basically take these frames or no more subsidized infrastructure). That still leaves 150ish for A&B.

I would also be curious to see what happens to the crossover point in your model with the changes as I suggested in the other thread and know what Cross sections you are using.

WIederling wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Which is not a problem using CFRPs.

CFRP is not magic dust and does not like compression.
it does not neutralize basic design constraints.

No - but there may be ways around it and luckily we have moved beyond slide rulers so more complex structures are possible.

CRJockey wrote:

seahawk wrote:

CRJockey wrote:

Apart from a structural efficiency standpoint of the double bubble, I am not convinced, how this meagre 3“ will create a widebody feeling. Just because there are two aisles?

You have only one middle seat and in a premium economy cabin you would have a highly comfortable 2-2-2.

I do get that. And maybe it is about personal taste anyway, but I am unable to get this widebody feeling thing if seen from a seat configuration standpoint.
I do get it from a straightforward “room” feeling, though where I simply don’t think 7,5cm (3” in horrible units”) make a difference at all.

Anyway, I will be the first to admit I did not have the vision for a 2-2-2 configured plane as Morrisond (and his calculations) predicts. That is, if Boeing builds it AND customers chose to configure it that way.
At the moment though, I fail to see the breakthrough in economics/engineering for a non-circular design of that size.
And that is especially true if one of the major competitive drivers according to Boeing will be lean and clean manufacturing (cost). Usually in engineering, the more complex the geometry of parts, the costlier to produce.

We shall see and I might need to eat my own words.

I think Seahawk meant 3' not 3" and it seems like with 737/787 seats (17.2-.3") and 17" aisles (vs 18" for the 777x) a 7W NMA could be as narrow as only 27" wider than an A320 - 183" vs 156". Hold your hands 13.5" apart and envision that being added to each side of an A320 - it's not a huge difference - but the extra Aisle will help with the perception it is wider.

Also - I think you meant to type 2-3-2 above. I have never believed in 2-2-2 - at that it's probably a no brainer to go 3x3.

Yes - usually in engineering more complex parts are harder/more costly to produce due to labour costs - until now. With the advent of 3D printing in Metal and CFRP we may see the first new clean sheet really taking advantage of that tech.

Now do it with 16,5" seats. That gains another 4,2" inch and would be okay, as you only have one middle seat.

flipdewaf wrote:

Revelation wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

“Boeing know something we don’t” smells very much of “we don’t know why but it’s all part of gods plan”.

The flip side of this is "I know everything Boeing knows through college level physics and a well constructed spreadsheet".

If some people believe this that's fine, but I don't.

or indeed the more middle ground of “well known engineering principles that hold true for the vast majority of applications should be assumed to be applicable in those similar applications being proposed, outside of those standards it would be prudent to demonstrate the ability, mechanism or both for its acceptance in a mature industry where examples of true innovation is few and far between”

Boeing's previous clean sheet was 787, the one before that 777, before that 757/767. All are twin-engined "tubes with wings", but I can see a lot of "true innovation" in each step. The tools of the trade for the 777 were IBM mainframes. I know, I was an IBM employee in the mainframe division and we got free cake with lunch after the contract was signed. Presumably the 787 was designed using workstations and servers. Now we have big data, warehouse scale computers and cloud infrastructure. There's a lot of things now that would not have been considered to be practical 15 or so years ago when 787 was being designed.

By the way, thanks everyone for the civil, if occasionally snarky, conversation. It's okay to be optimistic, it's okay to be skeptical. It's just interesting for me to track what the company is saying. Since there's no commitment to it, it could all be hot air. Or it could be something new and interesting.

I'm sure they're looking for a sweet spot. I'm not sure what that will end up being. I'm just willing to consider it might not be the one dictated by optimal physics. Whether or not that is a mistake or indeed if anything happens at all, time will tell.

On the other hand computer and materials are tools, that can not reverse basic design challenges and a 7 abreast configuration has more non-revenue producing floor space than a 6 abreast. Something has to give and I heard some rumour that Boeing went the Boeing way for improving efficiency. (aka smaller seats)

seahawk wrote:

On the other hand computer and materials are tools, that can not reverse basic design challenges and a 7 abreast configuration has more non-revenue producing floor space than a 6 abreast. Something has to give and I heard some rumour that Boeing went the Boeing way for improving efficiency. (aka smaller seats)

Yes - it is about 1.4x the floor space lost to aisles with a 2W, assuming 2x17" (1" less than 777X) vs 1 x19". That 19" only has to go to about 27" before it its the same. It is not a massive difference or disadvantage.

If you were going to size a 3x3 cross section to potentially take up to 300 seats - how wide would the aisle need to be reasonably?

Now the A320 can go 25" with 737/787 Seats - but can you stretch an A320 cross section that much or does it need to be higher?

If Boeing does go 3x3 it seems like Airbus did get the cross section pretty well bang on - assuming Boeing sticks with 737 seats - as you get that extra aisle width to accommodate an LD3-45 in the belly but how long can it go at 163" High and does the 7W start winning somewhere around 230-250 Y seats at 31" seat pitch where the A321 is good for 210.

3-3 is not what Boeing is going for. 2-3-2 with 16.5" seats and 18" aisles is a more than competitive solution when using modern design and production technology. Boeing wants to attack a completely untaken section of the market and they will delivery a twin aisle with single aisle operating costs, which will be a revolution.

Opus99 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

3-3 is not what Boeing is going for. 2-3-2 with 16.5" seats and 18" aisles is a more than competitive solution when using modern design and production technology. Boeing wants to attack a completely untaken section of the market and they will delivery a twin aisle with single aisle operating costs, which will be a revolution.

And that’s what I’m thinking! Twin aisle at single aisle operating costs. If they can do that? Then that would take the cake. Is it possible? Though? You would’ve have higher weight and more crew so more expensive by default? But at least comparable to single aisle should be the target.

Why more crew or more weight if they are the same capacity? Although the weight could be more - maybe not enough to make that big of a difference.

morrisond wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

3-3 is not what Boeing is going for. 2-3-2 with 16.5" seats and 18" aisles is a more than competitive solution when using modern design and production technology. Boeing wants to attack a completely untaken section of the market and they will delivery a twin aisle with single aisle operating costs, which will be a revolution.

And that’s what I’m thinking! Twin aisle at single aisle operating costs. If they can do that? Then that would take the cake. Is it possible? Though? You would’ve have higher weight and more crew so more expensive by default? But at least comparable to single aisle should be the target.

Why more crew or more weight if they are the same capacity? Although the weight could be more - maybe not enough to make that big of a difference.

I am still unsure, why suddenly airplane weight is somewhat "not that big of a difference"? A & B invest hundreds of millions into weight savings on existing platforms throughout the sales life. Sometimes to remove a kilogram here or three there. There really must be something you guys see that I don't. Which is possible...

CRJockey wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

And that’s what I’m thinking! Twin aisle at single aisle operating costs. If they can do that? Then that would take the cake. Is it possible? Though? You would’ve have higher weight and more crew so more expensive by default? But at least comparable to single aisle should be the target.

Why more crew or more weight if they are the same capacity? Although the weight could be more - maybe not enough to make that big of a difference.

I am still unsure, why suddenly airplane weight is somewhat "not that big of a difference"? A & B invest hundreds of millions into weight savings on existing platforms throughout the sales life. Sometimes to remove a kilogram here or three there. There really must be something you guys see that I don't. Which is possible...

I don't think we would ever be able to get into that level of detail that we know what one would weigh down to even within a a ton or so.

I'll have to redo the calculations for this smaller NMA - but if I'm right and the wetted area is less for an NMA 2x3x2 - meaning less skin area - which should weigh less - and if that skin is thicker than needed to deal with ramp rash - maybe some of that extra strength could be used to offset a potentially more complicated internal structure.

The bare Fuselage is also only about 5% of the MTOW - so if one design is say 5-10% worse than the other then you are only talking about a .25-.5% difference in structure - which does translate throughout the aircraft - what is the difference is only 1% or even even.

Frames like the 350XWB which is really a 9.5W or an A330 an 8.5W assuming we consider 737 seats as the bare minimum - seem to do fine carrying that extra structure. Things aren't always that simple.

The double circle idea is nothing new, and it's the sort of design I assumed Boeing was thinking when all the talk of an "oval" fuselage was starting. Many military cargo aircraft use this design. C-5, C-17, An-124, An-225, C-295, A-400M, C-390 etc all have flattened bellies. That being said, the C5, AN-124, AN-225 have the upper decks, so I think the overall height of the pressure vessels is still greater than the width, so the floors would still be in tension. The C-17, C-295, and A-400M appear to be wider than they are tall, which, from what I gather in this thread, means the floor is in compression. Does the fact that these are military transports designed to carry heavy equipment mean the floors are capable of handling the compression forces more than a passenger aircraft with underfloor cargo space? Or, am I missing something here?

The proposed TU-304 (Later called the Frigate Freejet) was a triple aisle wide body with a oval fuselage as well.

I'm not sure if I'm on the right track here, but I don't know that I'd be so quick to rule out the double circle type fuselage that has been proposed.

I keep hearing that it is only price that matters to flyers. Yet WN, which is definitely not always the cheapest, offers a lot less hassle, just a little more legroom than most. While a Boeing 'home team' (but obviously less so these days), I immediately realized that a 330/340 with its 2-4-2 seating was also more comfortable. The sense of being crowded was substantial compared to the NB's 3-3. A 2-3-2 was even more comfortable and was my obvious favorite. Some of us assumed that Boeing's MOM would be a much better done A300, but a 7 abreast would be a much better done 767. Much to love. And I would pay, say, 10% more.

I just redid the wetted area calcs. The 2x3x2 has about 1% less wetted area than a potential A322 (A321 plus two rows) assuming all Y of similar capacity.

In a mixed Cabin comparison 2x3x2 gets better, if you do 2x2x2 Domestic Bus in the Front or 1x1x1 sleepers as you can lose a bunch of cabin length for comparable capacity in the cabin. I didn't do those calculations but it is better.

The internal volume is about 6.5% more on the 2x3x2 - which was hard to wrap my head around - but this guy from Quora explains it well.

"The thing that these answers point out is that there are different possible cylinders that have the same surface area, but only one cube. The formulas are interesting and demonstrate the issue, but you should either sketch or imagine in your head the possible ways that the cylinder might look. I could be a cylinder that roughly approximates the proportions of a cube, similar in height and diameter, but it might also shrink in diameter to a more rod-like shape, long and thin. It can be very long and thin and still have the same surface area as the cube-like cylinder, and the longer and thinner it gets, the less its volume will be."