Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:46 pm

scbriml wrote:
Noshow wrote:
What are the 737 margins what are the A321 margins? Do we even know?
Sounds like highly proprietary stuff nobody in the know would be permitted to share?


Given neither OEM provides their financials on a per program basis, we have no way of knowing for sure. However, as was pointed out upthread, it’s possible to reach a reasonable conclusion. The reasonable conclusion seems at odds to the oft-quoted “facts” though.


I think it does not matter who makes more margin but it is cristal clear the 737 (until the grounding) and the A320 make the money while the WB are a hit and miss (787 lost money, than made money, now loses money, the 350 just made money now probably not again, 77X is losing big time right now, 747-8 and 380 only lost money).
So it is very important to have a selling NB that makes money.
Boeing right now has not and expects to lose money on the 737 for a while. With the -10 struggling to get certified and additional work neede (third AoA) that could also ruin type rating (very different procedures and failure modes with 3AoA vs 2) the 737 might never be a big money maker again.
787 will also struggle till WB demand picks up and the consolidation is sorted. 77X might not make money before 2030, if even.
767 trickles in money.
So Boeing is doomed to design a money making NB if they want to please the shareholders and it is risky to add a third wide body while still having no competitive NB offer.
Many airlines will be able to compete now with one family only (320) on all markets within 4500nm range and can compensate the rest with smart JVs. That is massive and can not be tackled with a NMA + NSA as they will still bring big differences in engines for example. A streamlined fleet als Southwest is so not possible.
Hence in my opinion the only smart and moneymaking move is to design a new family of aircraft with a single aisle. This time optimised from the beginning towards a 150 single class, a 200 single class and a 250 single class model, and with priority towards easy integration of new engine technology.
This will print money for a long time and will make shareholders very happy.
 
giblets
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:34 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:50 pm

Opus99 wrote:
astuteman wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Because the 737-8 costs more than the A320.

Boeing has a huge profit margin on the 737. Boeing is content with being in second place when they are easily making twice the profit margin of the competitor. Now after the Max crisis they have enough margin to offer discounts to easily keep the Max production line going for another decade.


Ah, the old kite being flown once again.
Love how this keeps getting let out of the echo chamber ....

Given that prior to the pandemic, Airbus were only just starting to break even on the A350, were unlikely to be making anything on the A330NEO, and were losing on the A380 and A400M, its pretty easy to synthesise an operating margin for Airbus on the A320series overall of 16% to 17% (certainly the 2019 accounts back this up).

Given that Boeing was returning some $30m on every 787 delivered (thus reducing the deferred production cost), the chances are that the 737 was actually less profitable.
don't think the 777 would have been making Boeing a lot of money, but I suspect the 767 made a decent margin.

Its pretty clear that Airbus were making better margin on the A320NEO than Boeing on the MAX.

What would be interesting, and relevant to the thread, would be to see how that A320NEO margin was split between the A320 and A321.
I'd be happy to concede that margins were lower on the A320NEO, but that implies that the A321NEO was rapidly becoming a money printing machine .....

Since the grounding, and then the lockdown, I'd be surprised if Boeing had any meaningful margin on the 737MAX for the next few years

These margin discussions are a lot of smoke and mirrors.

From creative accounting theories to the fact that we actually don’t have information to back up the margins because OEMs don’t disclose...who actually really knows?

Indeed, Airbus claims they walked about from MOL and Ryanair as they didn’t want to cut their prices that much...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

WIederling wrote:
[
The nice profits picture published by Boeing all the time is a mirage also assisted by the bag of cosmetics saddled onto GAAP.


Yes Boeing's earnings are somewhat of a mirage as are many listed companies which is a big issue. However don't pretend Airbus is not playing the same games.

When you take everything into account and look at Airbus's bottom bottom line - in the two busiest years of their History - 2018/2019 - Bottom line they lost over $4Billion dollars, mainly due to foreign currency losses and pension costs.

It's the equivalent of US companies adjusting out stock compensation costs from their earnings every year. That is part of compensation and what you promised people to get them to work for you. It is not a one time out of the blue - the factory burnt down cost.

When I started in finance 30+ years ago you might see "Adjusted Numbers" for a company in 1 out of 50 or 100 situations - because the factory burnt down - or you had a fire on a cruise ship. Basically an Act of God.

Now it's the exception to see a company report numbers without adjustments. They take an allowance for firing a Janitor. Guess what they fire Janitors every year - it is a normal part of doing business.
 
brindabella
Posts: 757
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:36 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Noshow wrote:
What are the 737 margins what are the A321 margins? Do we even know?
Sounds like highly proprietary stuff nobody in the know would be permitted to share?


Given neither OEM provides their financials on a per program basis, we have no way of knowing for sure. However, as was pointed out upthread, it’s possible to reach a reasonable conclusion. The reasonable conclusion seems at odds to the oft-quoted “facts” though.


I think it does not matter who makes more margin but it is cristal clear the 737 (until the grounding) and the A320 make the money while the WB are a hit and miss (787 lost money, than made money, now loses money, the 350 just made money now probably not again, 77X is losing big time right now, 747-8 and 380 only lost money).
So it is very important to have a selling NB that makes money.
Boeing right now has not and expects to lose money on the 737 for a while. With the -10 struggling to get certified and additional work neede (third AoA) that could also ruin type rating (very different procedures and failure modes with 3AoA vs 2) the 737 might never be a big money maker again.
787 will also struggle till WB demand picks up and the consolidation is sorted. 77X might not make money before 2030, if even.
767 trickles in money.
So Boeing is doomed to design a money making NB if they want to please the shareholders and it is risky to add a third wide body while still having no competitive NB offer.
Many airlines will be able to compete now with one family only (320) on all markets within 4500nm range and can compensate the rest with smart JVs. That is massive and can not be tackled with a NMA + NSA as they will still bring big differences in engines for example. A streamlined fleet als Southwest is so not possible.
Hence in my opinion the only smart and moneymaking move is to design a new family of aircraft with a single aisle. This time optimised from the beginning towards a 150 single class, a 200 single class and a 250 single class model, and with priority towards easy integration of new engine technology.
This will print money for a long time and will make shareholders very happy.


FWIW, Bernstein (IIRC) predicts 2022 positive cash-flow for Boeing.
You may be forgetting that the vast fleet of parked 737MAX actually exist - there is no more money required to actually build these frames,
for which the Bills have already been paid and the expenses already shown in the Annual Accounts.
MEGABUCKS.

Where the 250-seater is concerned, Boeing already had a very poor experience here - the B753.

I have recounted elsewhere about joining an airline around 1990 which was a VERY happy 767 operator.
I asked - "why not the 757?" (the airline had large 737 & A320 fleets).

"Nope - the 757 has 30-40 fewer seats but takes the same time - or longer - to turn around".

The reference was to the 752.

NOT the 753.

:talktothehand:

cheers

PS - so to those posters who glibly talk about the A322 - take a look at the history.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:42 pm

morrisond wrote:
When I started in finance 30+ years ago y.............


When you smashed your virgin piggy bank? :-)))

morrisond wrote:
Now it's the exception to see a company report numbers without adjustments.


So why do you specifically berate Airbus for "reporting details" that seem to present established procedure in this time?
In all your arguments you seem prone to wag the dog.

currency losses / gains are a feature of international trade.
By way of doing their business fully in the dollar domain you don't see that kind of fall out for US corporations. usually.

pension funds: no idea. The majority of funds for retirement are booked with paying wages and taxes.
Here in Germany : Sozialversicherung, Rentenversicherung, Krankenversicherung, Arbeitslosenversicherung.
Money that is out of the hands of the corporation.

Apropos:
How does Boeing handle their pension fund moneys? They seem to work them as asset.
( in that context a lot of those assets are on occasion destroyed, unavailable to the beneficiary.
I'd really hate it when my company pisses away my pension money ... )
 
Noshow
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:11 pm

The point is not what you earn on some aircraft's sales price but on a program and as a division or entire company. Spare parts and services hopefully bring in the money over many years and lead customers to buy your other products as well. This is why this a-net wisdom of speculating about the "margins" leads nowhere. We'd need to know the spare parts and services margins and many other aspects nobody has published.
 
StuckinCMHland
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:59 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:16 pm

Revelation wrote:
StuckinCMHland wrote:
I don't like to get involved with threads like this, though I enjoy reading them.

But I ask this question in all seriousness: At this point, does anyone on this thread really believe that Boeing as a company can do anything like this at all?

After the recent disasters in all of their divisions (Max, CST-100, and KC-46 for example) do they really have the technical know-how and the right people in charge of the company to do this? I sincerely doubt it. IMO they are a totally screwed up mess, and until they return to what they used to be they will never make something new that can change their soiled reputation.

The "totally screwed up mess" that has a "soiled reputation" just convinced the regulator in it's largest competitor's home market to approve the MAX changes, so maybe not "totally screwed up mess", I would think.

I'm OK with saying MAX was a disaster, but in my book CST-100 and KC-46 are not in the same category, unless you're willing to say Pratt's bearing problems or RR's blade coating problems or Airbus's cracked web feet are also "disasters". Since military is on your list, are the F-35 cost and schedule overruns disasters as well? At least for KC-46 it is Boeing who is paying for all the overruns, not the taxpayer.

Boeing is executing some programs quite well. The T-7A trainer is showcasing a lot of design and manufacturing advances, as is MQ-25. F15-EX and F18-E/F and P-8 and Wegetail are not spoken about in the media because they are being well executed and are gaining orders fairly steadily.

So, yes, I think Boeing can do something like the project being discussed here. If you dig past the headlines, I think MAX is in a class of its own, the rest fall into the category of pretty typical problems that show up when you try to push the technical limits.



Thank you for the kind reply. I wasn't trying to paint Boeing in a horrible light (as it seemed from the poor writing skills I have), but when I read and hear that the company started outsourcing their technical and engineering people trying to save money that's a sign to me that technical excellence to make a profit has been replaced by the idea that making money 'in the moment' is the only thing that matters. That philosophy is a prescription for disaster. I hope you are right, and I also hope they get their act together with CST-100, where it is quite clear the company seemed incompetent and unable to to produce a finished product for an important national mission, opening space travel up to more people.
 
744SPX
Posts: 700
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:37 pm

brindabella wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
scbriml wrote:

Given neither OEM provides their financials on a per program basis, we have no way of knowing for sure. However, as was pointed out upthread, it’s possible to reach a reasonable conclusion. The reasonable conclusion seems at odds to the oft-quoted “facts” though.


I think it does not matter who makes more margin but it is cristal clear the 737 (until the grounding) and the A320 make the money while the WB are a hit and miss (787 lost money, than made money, now loses money, the 350 just made money now probably not again, 77X is losing big time right now, 747-8 and 380 only lost money).
So it is very important to have a selling NB that makes money.
Boeing right now has not and expects to lose money on the 737 for a while. With the -10 struggling to get certified and additional work neede (third AoA) that could also ruin type rating (very different procedures and failure modes with 3AoA vs 2) the 737 might never be a big money maker again.
787 will also struggle till WB demand picks up and the consolidation is sorted. 77X might not make money before 2030, if even.
767 trickles in money.
So Boeing is doomed to design a money making NB if they want to please the shareholders and it is risky to add a third wide body while still having no competitive NB offer.
Many airlines will be able to compete now with one family only (320) on all markets within 4500nm range and can compensate the rest with smart JVs. That is massive and can not be tackled with a NMA + NSA as they will still bring big differences in engines for example. A streamlined fleet als Southwest is so not possible.
Hence in my opinion the only smart and moneymaking move is to design a new family of aircraft with a single aisle. This time optimised from the beginning towards a 150 single class, a 200 single class and a 250 single class model, and with priority towards easy integration of new engine technology.
This will print money for a long time and will make shareholders very happy.


FWIW, Bernstein (IIRC) predicts 2022 positive cash-flow for Boeing.
You may be forgetting that the vast fleet of parked 737MAX actually exist - there is no more money required to actually build these frames,
for which the Bills have already been paid and the expenses already shown in the Annual Accounts.
MEGABUCKS.

Where the 250-seater is concerned, Boeing already had a very poor experience here - the B753.

I have recounted elsewhere about joining an airline around 1990 which was a VERY happy 767 operator.
I asked - "why not the 757?" (the airline had large 737 & A320 fleets).

"Nope - the 757 has 30-40 fewer seats but takes the same time - or longer - to turn around".

The reference was to the 752.

NOT the 753.

:talktothehand:

cheers

PS - so to those posters who glibly talk about the A322 - take a look at the history.


Just making another argument for 2-2-2
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 27445
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:57 pm

StuckinCMHland wrote:
Thank you for the kind reply. I wasn't trying to paint Boeing in a horrible light (as it seemed from the poor writing skills I have), but when I read and hear that the company started outsourcing their technical and engineering people trying to save money that's a sign to me that technical excellence to make a profit has been replaced by the idea that making money 'in the moment' is the only thing that matters. That philosophy is a prescription for disaster. I hope you are right, and I also hope they get their act together with CST-100, where it is quite clear the company seemed incompetent and unable to to produce a finished product for an important national mission, opening space travel up to more people.

I agree a lot of these things were disappointments, and in particular CST-100 seems to be due to short term thinking and cost avoidance. I hope Boeing has learned something from that, time will tell. Personally I hope someone suffered some career damage for making that kind of decision. People in those jobs are always willing to reap the rewards of taking short cuts. I hope they are willing to take the blow back when they make a bad decision.

As someone in the software development field for the last 30+ years, outsourcing is a thing. Some jobs off-shored are never coming back. The US cost structure just is not competitive especially for tasks that need large numbers of people rather than a few individuals. Yet in my experience the industry learned that they went overboard on offshoring and outsourcing in the 2005-2015 time frame i.e. during 787 and MAX development. We see one evidence of this, Boeing took wing design and manufacture back in house. I saw similar things happening in my work life later in that period.

If you rail against Boeing for offshoring technology and engineering tasks, you need to to rail against pretty much every big corporation in the USA. A large majority of my peers in the US spend their days directing colleagues or contractors working in India and China. Welcome to globalization. The genie is not going to go back into the bottle. The toothpaste is out of the tube.

The amount of outsourcing was not a central problem with MAX, IMO. We know of one area that was outsourced, and that was software for the display. This was the area where the AoA disagree indicator that was supposed to be on all MAXes was only available if a certain option was purchased. Yet we have no idea what role outsourcing played: was it a specification error by Boeing, or an implementation error by the contractor? We don't know. We do know that once Boeing knew of the problem they put it into a safety category that meant they could wait till the next software update to fix it, so it was still not fixed when the second crash happened. I doubt that decision was outsourced. Seems to me the same kind of mistakes could have been made if all the work was done in house. Seems to me the media ran with the story because outsourcing will trigger people.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:00 pm

Revelation wrote:
The amount of outsourcing was not a central problem with MAX, IMO. We know of one area that was outsourced, and that was software for the display. This was the area where the AoA disagree indicator that was supposed to be on all MAXes was only available if a certain option was purchased.


More or less irrelevant.
As a customer I'd expect my test suite to show conformance ... or not.
Lenin: Trust, but verify
addendum: was it lack of conformance or lack of functional definition?

Outsourcing work is fully ok. Outsourcing responsibility less so.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27827
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:43 pm

Both Airbus and Boeing discount the A320neo and MAX families deeply - I've seen Research Notes from major banks that finance these deals that say both routinely offer 50% off list and for large orders / most-preferred customers the discounts can reach 60-65% off list.

But hey, when you're pumping out literally scores a month as both were doing in the late 2010sthe production costs would be dropping precipitously and these same research notes state that even with these discounts, program gross margins for both OEMs remained in the double-digits.

The real "price war" was between the A320ceo and 737NG as the OEMs wanted to both pad their order books during the model production switchovers. Boeing won the 100-frame Delta A321/737-900ER RFP by underbidding Airbus around 10% (for about a 51% discount off list).
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:01 pm

WIederling wrote:
morrisond wrote:
When I started in finance 30+ years ago y.............


When you smashed your virgin piggy bank? :-)))

morrisond wrote:
Now it's the exception to see a company report numbers without adjustments.


So why do you specifically berate Airbus for "reporting details" that seem to present established procedure in this time?
In all your arguments you seem prone to wag the dog.

currency losses / gains are a feature of international trade.
By way of doing their business fully in the dollar domain you don't see that kind of fall out for US corporations. usually.

pension funds: no idea. The majority of funds for retirement are booked with paying wages and taxes.
Here in Germany : Sozialversicherung, Rentenversicherung, Krankenversicherung, Arbeitslosenversicherung.
Money that is out of the hands of the corporation.

Apropos:
How does Boeing handle their pension fund moneys? They seem to work them as asset.
( in that context a lot of those assets are on occasion destroyed, unavailable to the beneficiary.
I'd really hate it when my company pisses away my pension money ... )


Not when I smashed my piggy bank - when I began in Capital Markets and was helping to raise Billions of Dollars for Canadian Companies.

Then later I got my CFA designation and today I am a portfolio manager. Although I will freely admit - financial statement analysis is not my favourite thing as it is really hard to compare apples to apples as the way companies count things can be vastly different. I make it really simple now - bottom line is bottom line no matter how you got there - if It was an actual cash cost that year it should count. And no I am not a fan of Program Cost Accounting as it can really skew things.

Yes currency losses are a normal part of doing business and should not be included as basically footnotes - but as a cost against sales and not adjusted out as if they will never reoccur. Would you adjust Duties out on imported parts to build the frames?

Pension costs are compensation costs - owed to your workers for work done they should not be excluded out either - by anyone even if it is a catch-up.

The bottom line is at Airbus in 2018/2019 more money went out door than what they made on the programs.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:20 pm

Huh - it seems like a double circle is not so hard from a pressurization standpoint after all. Here is a study on basically what Ostrower is saying NMA is - for the pressurized part - the difference being the NMA would not have the Bottom non-pressurized cargo comparment - NMA would incorporate that in the Floor Beams

https://www.dlr.de/fa/en/Portaldata/17/ ... srw_08.pdf

Some sort of Monolithic Floor Beam/Bottom Frame that is cutout for the Cargo container could work for NMA - with skin attached to bottom skin helping to offset the compression in the floor beam.

Reading the article we also have to remember the other structures in the bottom of the aircraft - wheel wells/wingbox and the Nose and tails where the equipment bays are - the frames that would be like those in the drawing in that attached article may be less than 50% of the length of the Aircraft. On the airframe we are debating over in tech ops - an NMA that is about 39M long would have ends and structure that would not have to deal with a big cutout for the Cargo container of about 33% (13.2M/39.6) of the complete length - plus the wingbox for say another 6M - leaving only about 20M length - part in the front and part behind the wingbox.

Notice the Top part of that fuselage (above the floor beam) is perfectly circular, and the bottom circular as well with about double the radius - just like Ostrower is guessing.
 
CRJockey
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:43 pm

morrisond wrote:
Huh - it seems like a double circle is not so hard from a pressurization standpoint after all. Here is a study on basically what Ostrower is saying NMA is - for the pressurized part - the difference being the NMA would not have the Bottom non-pressurized cargo comparment - NMA would incorporate that in the Floor Beams

https://www.dlr.de/fa/en/Portaldata/17/ ... srw_08.pdf

Some sort of Monolithic Floor Beam/Bottom Frame that is cutout for the Cargo container could work for NMA - with skin attached to bottom skin helping to offset the compression in the floor beam.

Reading the article we also have to remember the other structures in the bottom of the aircraft - wheel wells/wingbox and the Nose and tails where the equipment bays are - the frames that would be like those in the drawing in that attached article may be less than 50% of the length of the Aircraft. On the airframe we are debating over in tech ops - an NMA that is about 39M long would have ends and structure that would not have to deal with a big cutout for the Cargo container of about 33% (13.2M/39.6) of the complete length - plus the wingbox for say another 6M - leaving only about 20M length - part in the front and part behind the wingbox.

Notice the Top part of that fuselage (above the floor beam) is perfectly circular, and the bottom circular as well with about double the radius - just like Ostrower is guessing.


Well, and only 20+ years old, the concept. Shown during ILA 2002. Seems to be a winner as it has been adopted left right and center for new designs.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4488
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:50 pm

morrisond wrote:
Huh - it seems like a double circle is not so hard from a pressurization standpoint after all. Here is a study on basically what Ostrower is saying NMA is - for the pressurized part - the difference being the NMA would not have the Bottom non-pressurized cargo comparment - NMA would incorporate that in the Floor Beams

https://www.dlr.de/fa/en/Portaldata/17/ ... srw_08.pdf

Some sort of Monolithic Floor Beam/Bottom Frame that is cutout for the Cargo container could work for NMA - with skin attached to bottom skin helping to offset the compression in the floor beam.

Reading the article we also have to remember the other structures in the bottom of the aircraft - wheel wells/wingbox and the Nose and tails where the equipment bays are - the frames that would be like those in the drawing in that attached article may be less than 50% of the length of the Aircraft. On the airframe we are debating over in tech ops - an NMA that is about 39M long would have ends and structure that would not have to deal with a big cutout for the Cargo container of about 33% (13.2M/39.6) of the complete length - plus the wingbox for say another 6M - leaving only about 20M length - part in the front and part behind the wingbox.

Notice the Top part of that fuselage (above the floor beam) is perfectly circular, and the bottom circular as well with about double the radius - just like Ostrower is guessing.

The article actually states that it is likely heavier but could be partially offset by the use of composites.

A for the appearance of facts, D- for substance.

Your 39m mom would have to put the passengers like this.

Image
richard brautigan all watched over

BTW, the only debate occurring is Morris vs geometry. There is an expectation that you can fit the same passengers and an extra aisle in an aircraft with over 6m^2 less space.

To be fair on Morris, if Boeing can pull it off they will be on to a winner, so far I have only seen it done by the time lord himself.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:30 am

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Huh - it seems like a double circle is not so hard from a pressurization standpoint after all. Here is a study on basically what Ostrower is saying NMA is - for the pressurized part - the difference being the NMA would not have the Bottom non-pressurized cargo comparment - NMA would incorporate that in the Floor Beams

https://www.dlr.de/fa/en/Portaldata/17/ ... srw_08.pdf

Some sort of Monolithic Floor Beam/Bottom Frame that is cutout for the Cargo container could work for NMA - with skin attached to bottom skin helping to offset the compression in the floor beam.

Reading the article we also have to remember the other structures in the bottom of the aircraft - wheel wells/wingbox and the Nose and tails where the equipment bays are - the frames that would be like those in the drawing in that attached article may be less than 50% of the length of the Aircraft. On the airframe we are debating over in tech ops - an NMA that is about 39M long would have ends and structure that would not have to deal with a big cutout for the Cargo container of about 33% (13.2M/39.6) of the complete length - plus the wingbox for say another 6M - leaving only about 20M length - part in the front and part behind the wingbox.

Notice the Top part of that fuselage (above the floor beam) is perfectly circular, and the bottom circular as well with about double the radius - just like Ostrower is guessing.

The article actually states that it is likely heavier but could be partially offset by the use of composites.

A for the appearance of facts, D- for substance.

Your 39m mom would have to put the passengers like this.

Image
richard brautigan all watched over

BTW, the only debate occurring is Morris vs geometry. There is an expectation that you can fit the same passengers and an extra aisle in an aircraft with over 6m^2 less space.

To be fair on Morris, if Boeing can pull it off they will be on to a winner, so far I have only seen it done by the time lord himself.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You need to learn simple geometry and not come up with convoluted ways of defining things - if the Cabin are the same capacity - the area for the MOM would be about - 4.445M (175" internal - 5" sidewalls) x 26.4M = 117m^2 and the 3x3 is 3.58M (141" internal - 5 inch sidewalls) x 30.8M(16.7% more than MOM) = 110m^2 and the ends of the MOM are longer and wider meaning more internal space - there is no way the MOM has less floor area.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1523
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:19 am

astuteman wrote:
Given that Boeing was returning some $30m on every 787 delivered (thus reducing the deferred production cost), the chances are that the 737 was actually less profitable.
don't think the 777 would have been making Boeing a lot of money, but I suspect the 767 made a decent margin.


I don't have any clear insight into the 737 profitability, but just to add a little more data since I looked at the 787 numbers recently:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1457171&p=22643971#p22643971

2018 deferred production cost recovery was about $20 million per 787 delivered
2019 deferred production cost recovery was about $30 million per 787 delivered.

The 2018 number overlaps with significant 737 deliveries, so there is probably some insight to be gained there when compared to their operating cash flow, etc. 767 and 777 deliveries were modest, and of course 747 deliveries were minimal. 2019 saw very few 737 deliveries and an annual loss, so it might be hard to glean much from that.

787 deliveries in 2018 therefore seem to represent about $2.9 billion of Boeing Commercial's $7.9 billion earnings.

I suppose it's probably more complicated than that, but it's at least an initial estimate. If I arbitrarily assume 3/4 of the rest was 737 revenue, that would be $6.5 million per delivery. That same assumption would leave the margin of the pooled 747, 767, and 777 production at $15 million per delivery.

morrisond wrote:
Yes - but as the $30M from each 787 was going against Deferred Production cost - it was not showing up at the bottom of the income statement.


I admit I've got a lot of confusion over how to read their financial report, especially when it is better to look at GAAP vs. non-GAAP numbers, but I think the BCA earning's number I used above is GAAP, and even the GAAP earnings number is lower than their operating cash flow. So forgive an engineer for trying to interpret accounting data, but I'm hoping I'm in the right ballpark or erred on the conservative side.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:15 am

brindabella wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
scbriml wrote:

Given neither OEM provides their financials on a per program basis, we have no way of knowing for sure. However, as was pointed out upthread, it’s possible to reach a reasonable conclusion. The reasonable conclusion seems at odds to the oft-quoted “facts” though.


I think it does not matter who makes more margin but it is cristal clear the 737 (until the grounding) and the A320 make the money while the WB are a hit and miss (787 lost money, than made money, now loses money, the 350 just made money now probably not again, 77X is losing big time right now, 747-8 and 380 only lost money).
So it is very important to have a selling NB that makes money.
Boeing right now has not and expects to lose money on the 737 for a while. With the -10 struggling to get certified and additional work neede (third AoA) that could also ruin type rating (very different procedures and failure modes with 3AoA vs 2) the 737 might never be a big money maker again.
787 will also struggle till WB demand picks up and the consolidation is sorted. 77X might not make money before 2030, if even.
767 trickles in money.
So Boeing is doomed to design a money making NB if they want to please the shareholders and it is risky to add a third wide body while still having no competitive NB offer.
Many airlines will be able to compete now with one family only (320) on all markets within 4500nm range and can compensate the rest with smart JVs. That is massive and can not be tackled with a NMA + NSA as they will still bring big differences in engines for example. A streamlined fleet als Southwest is so not possible.
Hence in my opinion the only smart and moneymaking move is to design a new family of aircraft with a single aisle. This time optimised from the beginning towards a 150 single class, a 200 single class and a 250 single class model, and with priority towards easy integration of new engine technology.
This will print money for a long time and will make shareholders very happy.


FWIW, Bernstein (IIRC) predicts 2022 positive cash-flow for Boeing.
You may be forgetting that the vast fleet of parked 737MAX actually exist - there is no more money required to actually build these frames,
for which the Bills have already been paid and the expenses already shown in the Annual Accounts.
MEGABUCKS.

Where the 250-seater is concerned, Boeing already had a very poor experience here - the B753.

I have recounted elsewhere about joining an airline around 1990 which was a VERY happy 767 operator.
I asked - "why not the 757?" (the airline had large 737 & A320 fleets).

"Nope - the 757 has 30-40 fewer seats but takes the same time - or longer - to turn around".

The reference was to the 752.

NOT the 753.

:talktothehand:

cheers

PS - so to those posters who glibly talk about the A322 - take a look at the history.


I think you just gave yourself the answers for them "megabucks". Positive cashflow is back in 2022 while Boeing will deliver a lot of the parked MAX in 2021. Conclusion: Almost no money is coming in for them aircraft, because milestone-payments were made in 2018 and 2019 and now with the delay and compensation, as well as all the renegotiations, the new deals and applied retrospective credits, there is almost no cash coming in when an aircraft is handed over. On top of that the reduction in production increased costs while the aircraft are sold at way lower price. So from 2022 on, this should tip back to positive but with prices around 37mil$ for a MAX-8, the big profits are gone and if the production outweighs the demand (and there is a long thread on that), then pricing will stay low, especially for the aircraft that face strong competition (MAX-8, A320), while aircraft without competition still demand a premium (A321). The Problem is, Boeing has no offer there. So during the first half of the decade Boeing will make little money with the 737.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4488
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:19 am

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Huh - it seems like a double circle is not so hard from a pressurization standpoint after all. Here is a study on basically what Ostrower is saying NMA is - for the pressurized part - the difference being the NMA would not have the Bottom non-pressurized cargo comparment - NMA would incorporate that in the Floor Beams

https://www.dlr.de/fa/en/Portaldata/17/ ... srw_08.pdf

Some sort of Monolithic Floor Beam/Bottom Frame that is cutout for the Cargo container could work for NMA - with skin attached to bottom skin helping to offset the compression in the floor beam.

Reading the article we also have to remember the other structures in the bottom of the aircraft - wheel wells/wingbox and the Nose and tails where the equipment bays are - the frames that would be like those in the drawing in that attached article may be less than 50% of the length of the Aircraft. On the airframe we are debating over in tech ops - an NMA that is about 39M long would have ends and structure that would not have to deal with a big cutout for the Cargo container of about 33% (13.2M/39.6) of the complete length - plus the wingbox for say another 6M - leaving only about 20M length - part in the front and part behind the wingbox.

Notice the Top part of that fuselage (above the floor beam) is perfectly circular, and the bottom circular as well with about double the radius - just like Ostrower is guessing.

The article actually states that it is likely heavier but could be partially offset by the use of composites.

A for the appearance of facts, D- for substance.

Your 39m mom would have to put the passengers like this.

Image
richard brautigan all watched over

BTW, the only debate occurring is Morris vs geometry. There is an expectation that you can fit the same passengers and an extra aisle in an aircraft with over 6m^2 less space.

To be fair on Morris, if Boeing can pull it off they will be on to a winner, so far I have only seen it done by the time lord himself.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You need to learn simple geometry and not come up with convoluted ways of defining things - if the Cabin are the same capacity - the area for the MOM would be about - 4.445M (175" internal - 5" sidewalls) x 26.4M = 117m^2 and the 3x3 is 3.58M (141" internal - 5 inch sidewalls) x 30.8M(16.7% more than MOM) = 110m^2 and the ends of the MOM are longer and wider meaning more internal space - there is no way the MOM has less floor area.


1. So you think that suddenly comparing your mom idea with something that is 3.58m instead of what the weight calculations have been done on (A32X scale) when cabin areas are acceptable. Astuteman was right you do move the goalposts. I can redo the models with the size you suggest if you wish.

2. My response was to you assertion that the length difference would be twice that which I had calculate (2.7) so based on that. However even with you lengths with 16m added to the 3x3 and 19 to your mom then hey presto the length difference disappears.

3. When you complain about not taking account of the tapered area, don’t then complain that you have to taper that area to take account of the taper.

You stated that my model did not take account of the taper for the cabin area which would be larger in the mom. I made modifications to my model so that it took account of the taper in the tail, it also took count of the taper in the tail of the other cross sections (no special pleading in my model) and the mom shrunk by about 1.1m and the A321 scale by about 0.5m.

Less capacity and lighter or heavier and the same capacity, you can’t pick both.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:29 am

morrisond wrote:
Huh - it seems like a double circle is not so hard from a pressurization standpoint after all. Here is a study on basically what Ostrower is saying NMA is - for the pressurized part - the difference being the NMA would not have the Bottom non-pressurized cargo comparment - NMA would incorporate that in the Floor Beams

https://www.dlr.de/fa/en/Portaldata/17/ ... srw_08.pdf

Some sort of Monolithic Floor Beam/Bottom Frame that is cutout for the Cargo container could work for NMA - with skin attached to bottom skin helping to offset the compression in the floor beam.

Reading the article we also have to remember the other structures in the bottom of the aircraft - wheel wells/wingbox and the Nose and tails where the equipment bays are - the frames that would be like those in the drawing in that attached article may be less than 50% of the length of the Aircraft. On the airframe we are debating over in tech ops - an NMA that is about 39M long would have ends and structure that would not have to deal with a big cutout for the Cargo container of about 33% (13.2M/39.6) of the complete length - plus the wingbox for say another 6M - leaving only about 20M length - part in the front and part behind the wingbox.

Notice the Top part of that fuselage (above the floor beam) is perfectly circular, and the bottom circular as well with about double the radius - just like Ostrower is guessing.


To address the most important part in the article:

A number of questions concerning complex problems of the aircraft fuselage could addressed only marginally or not at all. A “typical” fuselage was primarily regarded here. Many detail problems and questions that came up even during the project had to be set aside and are only part of further work which will follow this project.


The demonstrator was also only a one row wide cut to show the shape and I could not find any follow up study. So it seems it was just an idea that was not followed as there most probably due to the problems they found and could not be addressed.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:08 pm

CRJockey wrote:
Well, and only 20+ years old, the concept. Shown during ILA 2002. Seems to be a winner as it has been adopted left right and center for new designs.


Afair the idea was to have a crumble zone ( hold ) and a resilient passenger cell with high deformation resistance.
( about what you have in automotive.)
The hold space was to be not pressurized!
 
brindabella
Posts: 757
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:21 pm

744SPX wrote:
brindabella wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

I think it does not matter who makes more margin but it is cristal clear the 737 (until the grounding) and the A320 make the money while the WB are a hit and miss (787 lost money, than made money, now loses money, the 350 just made money now probably not again, 77X is losing big time right now, 747-8 and 380 only lost money).
So it is very important to have a selling NB that makes money.
Boeing right now has not and expects to lose money on the 737 for a while. With the -10 struggling to get certified and additional work neede (third AoA) that could also ruin type rating (very different procedures and failure modes with 3AoA vs 2) the 737 might never be a big money maker again.
787 will also struggle till WB demand picks up and the consolidation is sorted. 77X might not make money before 2030, if even.
767 trickles in money.
So Boeing is doomed to design a money making NB if they want to please the shareholders and it is risky to add a third wide body while still having no competitive NB offer.
Many airlines will be able to compete now with one family only (320) on all markets within 4500nm range and can compensate the rest with smart JVs. That is massive and can not be tackled with a NMA + NSA as they will still bring big differences in engines for example. A streamlined fleet als Southwest is so not possible.
Hence in my opinion the only smart and moneymaking move is to design a new family of aircraft with a single aisle. This time optimised from the beginning towards a 150 single class, a 200 single class and a 250 single class model, and with priority towards easy integration of new engine technology.
This will print money for a long time and will make shareholders very happy.


FWIW, Bernstein (IIRC) predicts 2022 positive cash-flow for Boeing.
You may be forgetting that the vast fleet of parked 737MAX actually exist - there is no more money required to actually build these frames,
for which the Bills have already been paid and the expenses already shown in the Annual Accounts.
MEGABUCKS.

Where the 250-seater is concerned, Boeing already had a very poor experience here - the B753.

I have recounted elsewhere about joining an airline around 1990 which was a VERY happy 767 operator.
I asked - "why not the 757?" (the airline had large 737 & A320 fleets).

"Nope - the 757 has 30-40 fewer seats but takes the same time - or longer - to turn around".

The reference was to the 752.

NOT the 753.

:talktothehand:

cheers

PS - so to those posters who glibly talk about the A322 - take a look at the history.


Just making another argument for 2-2-2


Could be - as a passenger I love the idea- and in fact posted several years ago about an MD 2-2-2 project.
Their estimate of the losses WRT 3-3 was equivalent to 1-2 seats.

cheers
 
brindabella
Posts: 757
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:47 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
brindabella wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

I think it does not matter who makes more margin but it is cristal clear the 737 (until the grounding) and the A320 make the money while the WB are a hit and miss (787 lost money, than made money, now loses money, the 350 just made money now probably not again, 77X is losing big time right now, 747-8 and 380 only lost money).
So it is very important to have a selling NB that makes money.
Boeing right now has not and expects to lose money on the 737 for a while. With the -10 struggling to get certified and additional work neede (third AoA) that could also ruin type rating (very different procedures and failure modes with 3AoA vs 2) the 737 might never be a big money maker again.
787 will also struggle till WB demand picks up and the consolidation is sorted. 77X might not make money before 2030, if even.
767 trickles in money.
So Boeing is doomed to design a money making NB if they want to please the shareholders and it is risky to add a third wide body while still having no competitive NB offer.
Many airlines will be able to compete now with one family only (320) on all markets within 4500nm range and can compensate the rest with smart JVs. That is massive and can not be tackled with a NMA + NSA as they will still bring big differences in engines for example. A streamlined fleet als Southwest is so not possible.
Hence in my opinion the only smart and moneymaking move is to design a new family of aircraft with a single aisle. This time optimised from the beginning towards a 150 single class, a 200 single class and a 250 single class model, and with priority towards easy integration of new engine technology.
This will print money for a long time and will make shareholders very happy.


FWIW, Bernstein (IIRC) predicts 2022 positive cash-flow for Boeing.
You may be forgetting that the vast fleet of parked 737MAX actually exist - there is no more money required to actually build these frames,
for which the Bills have already been paid and the expenses already shown in the Annual Accounts.
MEGABUCKS.

Where the 250-seater is concerned, Boeing already had a very poor experience here - the B753.

I have recounted elsewhere about joining an airline around 1990 which was a VERY happy 767 operator.
I asked - "why not the 757?" (the airline had large 737 & A320 fleets).

"Nope - the 757 has 30-40 fewer seats but takes the same time - or longer - to turn around".

The reference was to the 752.

NOT the 753.

:talktothehand:

cheers

PS - so to those posters who glibly talk about the A322 - take a look at the history.


I think you just gave yourself the answers for them "megabucks". Positive cashflow is back in 2022 while Boeing will deliver a lot of the parked MAX in 2021. Conclusion: Almost no money is coming in for them aircraft, because milestone-payments were made in 2018 and 2019 and now with the delay and compensation, as well as all the renegotiations, the new deals and applied retrospective credits, there is almost no cash coming in when an aircraft is handed over. On top of that the reduction in production increased costs while the aircraft are sold at way lower price. So from 2022 on, this should tip back to positive but with prices around 37mil$ for a MAX-8, the big profits are gone and if the production outweighs the demand (and there is a long thread on that), then pricing will stay low, especially for the aircraft that face strong competition (MAX-8, A320), while aircraft without competition still demand a premium (A321). The Problem is, Boeing has no offer there. So during the first half of the decade Boeing will make little money with the 737.


Well put.

B still have a lot of scrambling to do to emerge from the hole they themselves have created.

But to raise the "degree of difficulty", B also has to launch the NMA simultaneously.
If not - the sad fate of McDD awaits.

:boggled:

(We watch the forthcoming aerial acrobatics of the great Boeing company.
We laugh; we cheer; we sigh;
Just hoping we don't also weep at the wipeout!).

cheers
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:58 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
The article actually states that it is likely heavier but could be partially offset by the use of composites.

A for the appearance of facts, D- for substance.

Your 39m mom would have to put the passengers like this.

Image
richard brautigan all watched over

BTW, the only debate occurring is Morris vs geometry. There is an expectation that you can fit the same passengers and an extra aisle in an aircraft with over 6m^2 less space.

To be fair on Morris, if Boeing can pull it off they will be on to a winner, so far I have only seen it done by the time lord himself.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You need to learn simple geometry and not come up with convoluted ways of defining things - if the Cabin are the same capacity - the area for the MOM would be about - 4.445M (175" internal - 5" sidewalls) x 26.4M = 117m^2 and the 3x3 is 3.58M (141" internal - 5 inch sidewalls) x 30.8M(16.7% more than MOM) = 110m^2 and the ends of the MOM are longer and wider meaning more internal space - there is no way the MOM has less floor area.


1. So you think that suddenly comparing your mom idea with something that is 3.58m instead of what the weight calculations have been done on (A32X scale) when cabin areas are acceptable. Astuteman was right you do move the goalposts. I can redo the models with the size you suggest if you wish.

2. My response was to you assertion that the length difference would be twice that which I had calculate (2.7) so based on that. However even with you lengths with 16m added to the 3x3 and 19 to your mom then hey presto the length difference disappears.

3. When you complain about not taking account of the tapered area, don’t then complain that you have to taper that area to take account of the taper.

You stated that my model did not take account of the taper for the cabin area which would be larger in the mom. I made modifications to my model so that it took account of the taper in the tail, it also took count of the taper in the tail of the other cross sections (no special pleading in my model) and the mom shrunk by about 1.1m and the A321 scale by about 0.5m.

Less capacity and lighter or heavier and the same capacity, you can’t pick both.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No - thinking about this last night in bed I realized I made a basic mistake - the internal width of the 3x3 should have been 146" not 141" - which would be A320 Width less 10" for two side walls or 3.71M x the cabin length of 30.8 = 114.3 M - still less than the MOM.

Plus then you have cones/hemisheres on the ends before the bulkheads that have a larger internal floor area than the A320 - how is that less area?

But as I said before the length difference you calculated is not bad - however if an aircraft designer was to optimize it I'm sure they could take some more length out of it.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:01 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Huh - it seems like a double circle is not so hard from a pressurization standpoint after all. Here is a study on basically what Ostrower is saying NMA is - for the pressurized part - the difference being the NMA would not have the Bottom non-pressurized cargo comparment - NMA would incorporate that in the Floor Beams

https://www.dlr.de/fa/en/Portaldata/17/ ... srw_08.pdf

Some sort of Monolithic Floor Beam/Bottom Frame that is cutout for the Cargo container could work for NMA - with skin attached to bottom skin helping to offset the compression in the floor beam.

Reading the article we also have to remember the other structures in the bottom of the aircraft - wheel wells/wingbox and the Nose and tails where the equipment bays are - the frames that would be like those in the drawing in that attached article may be less than 50% of the length of the Aircraft. On the airframe we are debating over in tech ops - an NMA that is about 39M long would have ends and structure that would not have to deal with a big cutout for the Cargo container of about 33% (13.2M/39.6) of the complete length - plus the wingbox for say another 6M - leaving only about 20M length - part in the front and part behind the wingbox.

Notice the Top part of that fuselage (above the floor beam) is perfectly circular, and the bottom circular as well with about double the radius - just like Ostrower is guessing.


To address the most important part in the article:

A number of questions concerning complex problems of the aircraft fuselage could addressed only marginally or not at all. A “typical” fuselage was primarily regarded here. Many detail problems and questions that came up even during the project had to be set aside and are only part of further work which will follow this project.


The demonstrator was also only a one row wide cut to show the shape and I could not find any follow up study. So it seems it was just an idea that was not followed as there most probably due to the problems they found and could not be addressed.


For an enthusiast site I'm constantly floored by how many think that things will never progress beyond basic round tube and wings as if technology is forever frozen in time.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 27445
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:57 pm

CRJockey wrote:
Well, and only 20+ years old, the concept. Shown during ILA 2002. Seems to be a winner as it has been adopted left right and center for new designs.

I don't think elapsed time tells us anything. It's not like there have been a lot of opportunities to apply new ideas to clean sheets. Lightsaber has told us he spent his early career implementing Whittle patents from the 1940s that had expired. Then we have a 2015 improvement to 777 arising from something proposed in the 1990s:

The outboard raked wingtip was to have a divergent trailing edge, described as a "poor man's airfoil" by Boeing; this was originally developed for the McDonnell Douglas MD-12 project.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_77 ... provements

In short, a lot of viable concepts sit on the shelves in aviation for some very long amounts of time. Not sure this is one of them or not, but we can't just say time has elapsed therefore it's a bad idea.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4488
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:12 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

You need to learn simple geometry and not come up with convoluted ways of defining things - if the Cabin are the same capacity - the area for the MOM would be about - 4.445M (175" internal - 5" sidewalls) x 26.4M = 117m^2 and the 3x3 is 3.58M (141" internal - 5 inch sidewalls) x 30.8M(16.7% more than MOM) = 110m^2 and the ends of the MOM are longer and wider meaning more internal space - there is no way the MOM has less floor area.


1. So you think that suddenly comparing your mom idea with something that is 3.58m instead of what the weight calculations have been done on (A32X scale) when cabin areas are acceptable. Astuteman was right you do move the goalposts. I can redo the models with the size you suggest if you wish.

2. My response was to you assertion that the length difference would be twice that which I had calculate (2.7) so based on that. However even with you lengths with 16m added to the 3x3 and 19 to your mom then hey presto the length difference disappears.

3. When you complain about not taking account of the tapered area, don’t then complain that you have to taper that area to take account of the taper.

You stated that my model did not take account of the taper for the cabin area which would be larger in the mom. I made modifications to my model so that it took account of the taper in the tail, it also took count of the taper in the tail of the other cross sections (no special pleading in my model) and the mom shrunk by about 1.1m and the A321 scale by about 0.5m.

Less capacity and lighter or heavier and the same capacity, you can’t pick both.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No - thinking about this last night in bed I realized I made a basic mistake - the internal width of the 3x3 should have been 146" not 141" - which would be A320 Width less 10" for two side walls or 3.71M x the cabin length of 30.8 = 114.3 M - still less than the MOM.

Plus then you have cones/hemisheres on the ends before the bulkheads that have a larger internal floor area than the A320 - how is that less area?


It isn't, but then that isn't 5m shorter either! if you take the A321 at 44.5m then you take the 5.4m off you are left with a 39.1m MOM.
There is 6.8m of nose leaving 32.3m of total aircraft length behind of which 11.3 is the tail and the rest (21m) is constant section. 21m at 175" (4.445m) is 93.345m^2
The area in the tail section is 1/2*w*Ltail (0.5*4.445*11) = 24.4m^2 total = 118m^2
And this uses the entirety of the tail, right to the very tip!

My calculation that gives a difference of 2.7m makes it so both aircraft cabins stop when the amount of usable space (h x w) gets to a certain level within the confines of the proposed configuration.

morrisond wrote:
But as I said before the length difference you calculated is not bad -


Since when are you the arbiter on what is an isn't a reasonable number?

morrisond wrote:
however if an aircraft designer was to optimize it I'm sure they could take some more length out of it.


Special pleading again? can good designers only work on widebodies?

Fred
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:33 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
It isn't, but then that isn't 5m shorter either! if you take the A321 at 44.5m then you take the 5.4m off you are left with a 39.1m MOM.
There is 6.8m of nose leaving 32.3m of total aircraft length behind of which 11.3 is the tail and the rest (21m) is constant section. 21m at 175" (4.445m) is 93.345m^2
The area in the tail section is 1/2*w*Ltail (0.5*4.445*11) = 24.4m^2 total = 118m^2
And this uses the entirety of the tail, right to the very tip!


Fred


At least it would be very aero.

And what are your calculations for the A321 then including the Nose?
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4488
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:15 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
It isn't, but then that isn't 5m shorter either! if you take the A321 at 44.5m then you take the 5.4m off you are left with a 39.1m MOM.
There is 6.8m of nose leaving 32.3m of total aircraft length behind of which 11.3 is the tail and the rest (21m) is constant section. 21m at 175" (4.445m) is 93.345m^2
The area in the tail section is 1/2*w*Ltail (0.5*4.445*11) = 24.4m^2 total = 118m^2
And this uses the entirety of the tail, right to the very tip!


Fred


At least it would be very aero.

And what are your calculations for the A321 then including the Nose?

If we calculated it in the same way:
44.5 m total, 6.06m for the nose leaving ~38.5 left behind of which 10.1 is in the tail leaving a constant section of 28.4m. 28.4 * 3.75 = 106.5m^2 in the constant section and 0.5*10.1*4.04 in the tail (20.4m^2)

Edit: For my 6m difference I had used fuselage width not cabin width.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:33 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Huh - it seems like a double circle is not so hard from a pressurization standpoint after all. Here is a study on basically what Ostrower is saying NMA is - for the pressurized part - the difference being the NMA would not have the Bottom non-pressurized cargo comparment - NMA would incorporate that in the Floor Beams

https://www.dlr.de/fa/en/Portaldata/17/ ... srw_08.pdf

Some sort of Monolithic Floor Beam/Bottom Frame that is cutout for the Cargo container could work for NMA - with skin attached to bottom skin helping to offset the compression in the floor beam.

Reading the article we also have to remember the other structures in the bottom of the aircraft - wheel wells/wingbox and the Nose and tails where the equipment bays are - the frames that would be like those in the drawing in that attached article may be less than 50% of the length of the Aircraft. On the airframe we are debating over in tech ops - an NMA that is about 39M long would have ends and structure that would not have to deal with a big cutout for the Cargo container of about 33% (13.2M/39.6) of the complete length - plus the wingbox for say another 6M - leaving only about 20M length - part in the front and part behind the wingbox.

Notice the Top part of that fuselage (above the floor beam) is perfectly circular, and the bottom circular as well with about double the radius - just like Ostrower is guessing.


To address the most important part in the article:

A number of questions concerning complex problems of the aircraft fuselage could addressed only marginally or not at all. A “typical” fuselage was primarily regarded here. Many detail problems and questions that came up even during the project had to be set aside and are only part of further work which will follow this project.


The demonstrator was also only a one row wide cut to show the shape and I could not find any follow up study. So it seems it was just an idea that was not followed as there most probably due to the problems they found and could not be addressed.


For an enthusiast site I'm constantly floored by how many think that things will never progress beyond basic round tube and wings as if technology is forever frozen in time.


History tells us that in aviation (likewise in car design and manufacturing) progress is really really slow. You never see extrem movement in multiple areas at the same time. Aircraft look the same since the jet age, and since 40 years more and more CFRP is included. It took until the 787 to have a non metal hull.

Boeing can not aford a one in a million moonshot by changing shape + new manufacturing + new container + new cockpit philosophy + serving a niche market. That is not possible outside of experimental stages because the risk is too high to crash the business. Boeing needs a solid business case to weather the current storm and can only afford to tackle one obstacle (better manufacturing to increase profits) but also faces a second one (new cockpit philosophy). There is not a lot of room to address the other things so in my opinion Boeing will go the conservative way and deliver a solid single aisle to guarantee a money maker.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:54 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

To address the most important part in the article:



The demonstrator was also only a one row wide cut to show the shape and I could not find any follow up study. So it seems it was just an idea that was not followed as there most probably due to the problems they found and could not be addressed.


For an enthusiast site I'm constantly floored by how many think that things will never progress beyond basic round tube and wings as if technology is forever frozen in time.


History tells us that in aviation (likewise in car design and manufacturing) progress is really really slow. You never see extrem movement in multiple areas at the same time. Aircraft look the same since the jet age, and since 40 years more and more CFRP is included. It took until the 787 to have a non metal hull.

Boeing can not aford a one in a million moonshot by changing shape + new manufacturing + new container + new cockpit philosophy + serving a niche market. That is not possible outside of experimental stages because the risk is too high to crash the business. Boeing needs a solid business case to weather the current storm and can only afford to tackle one obstacle (better manufacturing to increase profits) but also faces a second one (new cockpit philosophy). There is not a lot of room to address the other things so in my opinion Boeing will go the conservative way and deliver a solid single aisle to guarantee a money maker.


Yes - a concept that was known about as late as 2002 and possibly earlier might make to EIS around 2030 - about 30 years later. Yes that is slow.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:18 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
It isn't, but then that isn't 5m shorter either! if you take the A321 at 44.5m then you take the 5.4m off you are left with a 39.1m MOM.
There is 6.8m of nose leaving 32.3m of total aircraft length behind of which 11.3 is the tail and the rest (21m) is constant section. 21m at 175" (4.445m) is 93.345m^2
The area in the tail section is 1/2*w*Ltail (0.5*4.445*11) = 24.4m^2 total = 118m^2
And this uses the entirety of the tail, right to the very tip!


Fred


At least it would be very aero.

And what are your calculations for the A321 then including the Nose?

If we calculated it in the same way:
44.5 m total, 6.06m for the nose leaving ~38.5 left behind of which 10.1 is in the tail leaving a constant section of 28.4m. 28.4 * 3.75 = 106.5m^2 in the constant section and 0.5*10.1*4.04 in the tail (20.4m^2)

Edit: For my 6m difference I had used fuselage width not cabin width.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



So we are back to 5.4M difference. The other day you had the A321 at 43.4 and the MOM at 40.4 which did not make sense to me. Did you maybe just mistype something? Was 43.4 supposed to 45.4? You ave been going back and forth between 206 and 212/216 seats or so.

I agree these new numbers make a lot more sense.

So basically you are saying your model says a 2-3-2 with the same capacity and the same space for Galleys/ LAVs and two aisles has about 3-4% less floor area and by my calculations about 9% less skin area and 2% less volume and at its aero sections are more tapered leading to possible aero advantages.

Ignoring the unknown (How much of a weight penalty would a double circle take) that seems pretty efficient to me and not something impossible to overcome with design choices/inherent properties of some materials elsewhere. It is definitely in the ballpark and by your own model within the Delta of A320 vs 737 at about 322 seat capacity.

As it is a lot shorter you would save a bunch with shorter gear due to the shorter length and longer tapered rear.

Good model. Good work.
 
CRJockey
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:35 pm

Revelation wrote:
CRJockey wrote:
Well, and only 20+ years old, the concept. Shown during ILA 2002. Seems to be a winner as it has been adopted left right and center for new designs.

I don't think elapsed time tells us anything. It's not like there have been a lot of opportunities to apply new ideas to clean sheets. Lightsaber has told us he spent his early career implementing Whittle patents from the 1940s that had expired. Then we have a 2015 improvement to 777 arising from something proposed in the 1990s:

The outboard raked wingtip was to have a divergent trailing edge, described as a "poor man's airfoil" by Boeing; this was originally developed for the McDonnell Douglas MD-12 project.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_77 ... provements

In short, a lot of viable concepts sit on the shelves in aviation for some very long amounts of time. Not sure this is one of them or not, but we can't just say time has elapsed therefore it's a bad idea.


We had 787, A350, MS-21 and C919, arguably the E-Jets with launch in 1999.

Plenty of opportunity.

No, time elapsed is in itself no useful tool. Neither is pulling out decades old special fuselage designs with an unpressurized Cargo compartment, leading to a whole lot of problems of its own.
 
CRJockey
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:36 pm

WIederling wrote:
CRJockey wrote:
Well, and only 20+ years old, the concept. Shown during ILA 2002. Seems to be a winner as it has been adopted left right and center for new designs.


Afair the idea was to have a crumble zone ( hold ) and a resilient passenger cell with high deformation resistance.
( about what you have in automotive.)
The hold space was to be not pressurized!


That’s how I read it as well. Pretty annoying stuff for a lot of freight to be unpressurized / unclimatized.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4488
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:16 pm

morrisond wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

At least it would be very aero.

And what are your calculations for the A321 then including the Nose?

If we calculated it in the same way:
44.5 m total, 6.06m for the nose leaving ~38.5 left behind of which 10.1 is in the tail leaving a constant section of 28.4m. 28.4 * 3.75 = 106.5m^2 in the constant section and 0.5*10.1*4.04 in the tail (20.4m^2)

Edit: For my 6m difference I had used fuselage width not cabin width.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



So we are back to 5.4M difference. The other day you had the A321 at 43.4 and the MOM at 40.4 which did not make sense to me. Did you maybe just mistype something? Was 43.4 supposed to 45.4? You ave been going back and forth between 206 and 212/216 seats or so.

I agree these new numbers make a lot more sense.

So basically you are saying your model says a 2-3-2 with the same capacity and the same space for Galleys/ LAVs and two aisles has about 3-4% less floor area and by my calculations about 9% less skin area and 2% less volume and at its aero sections are more tapered leading to possible aero advantages.

Ignoring the unknown (How much of a weight penalty would a double circle take) that seems pretty efficient to me and not something impossible to overcome with design choices/inherent properties of some materials elsewhere. It is definitely in the ballpark and by your own model within the Delta of A320 vs 737 at about 322 seat capacity.

As it is a lot shorter you would save a bunch with shorter gear due to the shorter length and longer tapered rear.

Good model. Good work.


I wrote a reply but it was massive and much more suitable for the Tech/ops thread so I have put it in there. :lol:

Fred
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:38 pm

WIederling wrote:
CRJockey wrote:
Well, and only 20+ years old, the concept. Shown during ILA 2002. Seems to be a winner as it has been adopted left right and center for new designs.


Afair the idea was to have a crumble zone ( hold ) and a resilient passenger cell with high deformation resistance.
( about what you have in automotive.)
The hold space was to be not pressurized!


And when I linked the article to this thread - I said ignore the lower unpressurized cargo area. NMA's cargo hold would be in the double circle pressurized portion, cut out of the monolithic floor/lower frame. I also surmised that is you rigidly attached the cargo hold sides to the beams you would effectively create a huge keel beam - which could more than offset the bending issues of a cross section that is wider than high. At least for the 50% of the frame where it wasn't an end or above the wingbox where this would not be a problem as we would be dealing with a circular cross section or lots of bulkheads below.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 2043
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:17 am

morrisond wrote:
Yes - a concept that was known about as late as 2002 and possibly earlier might make to EIS around 2030 - about 30 years later. Yes that is slow.



You ever wonder why this is? Seems like it is a market where a suitable solution is hard to come by, even for engineers and designers at both OEM's.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:14 pm

enzo011 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Yes - a concept that was known about as late as 2002 and possibly earlier might make to EIS around 2030 - about 30 years later. Yes that is slow.



You ever wonder why this is? Seems like it is a market where a suitable solution is hard to come by, even for engineers and designers at both OEM's.


It also just takes a lot of effort to push the state of the art a bit. Just think how long it has taken to make a Geared Turbo Fan work.

If the rumours were right - this was the cross section or something similar that Boeing was going to use for NSA back in 2011 and the rumours have stayed pretty consistent since then.

They gained a lot of experience with the 787 and the 777X new wing - they are understanding composites a lot better - new composites are available, computing power has multiplied exponentially, Machine learning is helping to make structures lighter and and knowledge has been gained in terms of how to efficiently produce complex composite structures (like the 777X wing) to radically reduce labour hours - maybe it has just taken this long to get to the point where we can start to progress beyond the basic round tube and wing.

Not to belabour it, but I'm going too - one of the main takeaways from that article was realizing how little of the length of the belly of a 2-3-2 would have the floor beam in compression where you would have a big hole in the monolithic floor beam/ lower floor frame for the cargo compartment. Due to all the pressure bulkheads in the ends for things like wheel well and gear bays - those sections should really not have any issues and it should be a lot easier to deal with the loads as they would also probably taper to circular anyways.

Plus then you have the section above the wingbox - the wingbox is essentially rectangular with only a Round cross section above it in the Ostrower Double Circle 2-3-2 concept - just like a 3x3. The leaves only about 50% of the length of an NMA-5 - maybe 20% in front of the wingbox and 30% behind that would have to deal with some non-standard loads. As I laid out above in another post that could be overcome with some innovative thinking - effectively turning the Cargo bay into a large keel beam.

Plus this 2x3x2 is really not that far off round. If it is 168"H x 185"W a circle of equivalent circular diameter would be about 176" x 176" - it's very mildly elliptical. You only have to taper out 8.5" on each side of the aircraft over 22' in the nose to get to round - (I'm sure not that hard to do in 5-6' if you wanted too) and in the tail you have 37' of length to work with. This is not an extreme shape.

Do I think that an NMA that has 9% less skin area, 2% less volume than a comparable capacity/technology 3x3 would weigh less? Probably not - but I don't think it would weigh a lot more - most likely low single digits - as only about 50% of it's length would be non-standard.

Lets go to an extreme - say that the non- standard cabin part is 20% heavier by equivalent Capacity - however those sections would not be 50% of the weight of the aircraft - the wingbox and nose sections and tail have to deal with a lot of loads are probably a high percentage of the weight - call it 60% - so 40% left over for the cabin that is not part of the wingbox - making the NMA fuselage 8% heavier for the same capacity at worst - and it could be a much smaller delta.

I posted a study many times over the last year ( that I can't find now) that shows that an A320 fuselage is about 5% of the MTOW - the study shows that done in carbon this drops to 3%.

So an increase of 8% of 3% is a whopping .24% - if you take an example that is pretty extreme. That is only 500lbs. The NMA could use shorter gear than an equivalent capacity 3x3 to get the same rotation angles - I'm sure you would make that up with the lighter gear and less structure(due to shorter lighter gear) in the wingbox and nose bay/nose gear.

It's a rounding error - and also less than the gain you get from a mild PIP or minor change to wingtips.

It should not be that much more complicated to manufacture as most of it will be automated - and about 50% of the fuselage won't be materially different than a 3x3 - the rest of the aircraft is the same - wings, tail, wingbox and most of the nose once circular. Plus the 2-3-2 will have fewer parts (frames, etc.. than an equivalent capacity 3x3) in the passenger compartment as it's shorter - it will just take design time to make it light and deal with the more complex loads in the non standard sections.

You have to guess that Boeing has not stopped working on refining this 2-3-2 even after NSA was scrapped and have been building and testing cross sections in a secret lab somewhere getting it ready for prime time.

Just like I am sure Airbus is doing as well (working on new concepts). Given that article originated in Germany (On the Double Circle with non-pressurized cargo bay) who knows that that idea didn't come out of Airbus engineers originally anyways?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:29 pm

Very good post, thank you. I agree with all points, except that I would not discount 2-4-2 with a lifting body fuselage design for even increased efficiency.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:12 pm

seahawk wrote:
Very good post, thank you. I agree with all points, except that I would not discount 2-4-2 with a lifting body fuselage design for even increased efficiency.


Thank you

If they had bought the C-Series I think you are right that may have been the best way to go - but I think as they didn't they will reuse this NMA cross section for NSA for commonality with the smallest size of NSA probably somewhere around 738 plus a bit (Equivalent to a potential 220-500/700) and don't worry about the market below that - which after 2030 could be quite small given passenger growth and environmental concerns.

A 2-4-2 would just be too short for NSA capacities.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:55 pm

That would depend on how small they want to go with the NSA. But I agree that a combined family of 2-3-2 MoM and NSA would be nearly impossible to beat.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:05 am

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

For an enthusiast site I'm constantly floored by how many think that things will never progress beyond basic round tube and wings as if technology is forever frozen in time.


History tells us that in aviation (likewise in car design and manufacturing) progress is really really slow. You never see extrem movement in multiple areas at the same time. Aircraft look the same since the jet age, and since 40 years more and more CFRP is included. It took until the 787 to have a non metal hull.

Boeing can not aford a one in a million moonshot by changing shape + new manufacturing + new container + new cockpit philosophy + serving a niche market. That is not possible outside of experimental stages because the risk is too high to crash the business. Boeing needs a solid business case to weather the current storm and can only afford to tackle one obstacle (better manufacturing to increase profits) but also faces a second one (new cockpit philosophy). There is not a lot of room to address the other things so in my opinion Boeing will go the conservative way and deliver a solid single aisle to guarantee a money maker.


Yes - a concept that was known about as late as 2002 and possibly earlier might make to EIS around 2030 - about 30 years later. Yes that is slow.


The problem I have with the concept is, that I cant find any pressurized model (like 10:1 or 5:1) built and tested. When we look back the last few years, there were a lot of BWB models etc. built and tested and still nothing has happened that points towards a commercial application in the next 15-20 years.
So I can't really imagine Boeing doing this moonshot without any proper testing in advance of the concept. It would be a very high risk application and I do not see how the BoD would allow this to go ahead.
Calculating it on computers is one thing, but there are always assumptions and conditions put into them models to make it work, and to really get it done you need to build an actual model and test things. As I haven't seen any evidence of that, I think it is too much risk to go straight to commercial application especially in the current environment. Boeing could lose the NB segment (the really profitable one) if things turn out bad (delays, cost overruns, etc.).
Airbus needed 30 years to catch up in the NB market and finally overtake Boeing. Good Boeing was really passive in that segment. Waiting another 15 years to launch something competitive into the NB market that can actually take back market share could push them close to the point where it will take too long to serve that segment economically.

If we have COMAC taking 10% share of the NB market, we could end up at 64% Airbus, 10% Comac, 24% Boeing, and 2% EMB. We are already at roughly 60/40 but over the next 2-3 years Airbus will increase the lead as an aftermath of the MAX grounding and reduced output of 737s.

It will be hard for Boeing to claim back ground if they wait too long with a compelling offer in the 150-200 seat market. Airbus could lock that segment in if they push out a good aircraft while Boeing is still sorting out the MoM. Then Boeing is pressured to launch some answer fast again (for the third time in a row). It worked with the NG but it was a few years behind the A320 and them years gave Airbus the entry into the NB-Market. Then Boeing was behind with the MAX vs NEO and lead to a costly grounding due to rushing the design, and gave the NB-Market lead to Airbus. If they have to rush a solution out again, it could hand Airbus a commanding lead for the next 30 years. That is a dangerous game. The story of McDD comes to mind.
 
WIederling
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:51 am

FluidFlow wrote:
It will be hard for Boeing to claim back ground if they wait too long with a compelling offer in the 150-200 seat market. Airbus could lock that segment in if they push out a good aircraft while Boeing is still sorting out the MoM.


The hardest part is the grandfathering "detox".

They'd have to do not only a new design but also conform to all current requirements.
fuselage only 9g, obstacle clearance on OEO reduced, all that stuff from 1965 is no longer possible.

i.e. the fuselage will gain quite some weight, the engines will require thrust one class up ...
Slides will be needed ...
 
Noshow
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:22 pm

Why has Boeing missed the entire market segment that the A321neo has grown into? Do they need a different way to forecast?
I am not claiming that others don't err as well. A380 comes to my mind.
Boeing can use it's experiences with the 787 and build some lighter weight 767 follow on. And after that the 737 follow on. However it needs newer engines to clearly top those XLRs.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3798
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:56 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

History tells us that in aviation (likewise in car design and manufacturing) progress is really really slow. You never see extrem movement in multiple areas at the same time. Aircraft look the same since the jet age, and since 40 years more and more CFRP is included. It took until the 787 to have a non metal hull.

Boeing can not aford a one in a million moonshot by changing shape + new manufacturing + new container + new cockpit philosophy + serving a niche market. That is not possible outside of experimental stages because the risk is too high to crash the business. Boeing needs a solid business case to weather the current storm and can only afford to tackle one obstacle (better manufacturing to increase profits) but also faces a second one (new cockpit philosophy). There is not a lot of room to address the other things so in my opinion Boeing will go the conservative way and deliver a solid single aisle to guarantee a money maker.


Yes - a concept that was known about as late as 2002 and possibly earlier might make to EIS around 2030 - about 30 years later. Yes that is slow.


The problem I have with the concept is, that I cant find any pressurized model (like 10:1 or 5:1) built and tested. When we look back the last few years, there were a lot of BWB models etc. built and tested and still nothing has happened that points towards a commercial application in the next 15-20 years.
So I can't really imagine Boeing doing this moonshot without any proper testing in advance of the concept. It would be a very high risk application and I do not see how the BoD would allow this to go ahead.
Calculating it on computers is one thing, but there are always assumptions and conditions put into them models to make it work, and to really get it done you need to build an actual model and test things. As I haven't seen any evidence of that, I think it is too much risk to go straight to commercial application especially in the current environment. Boeing could lose the NB segment (the really profitable one) if things turn out bad (delays, cost overruns, etc.).
Airbus needed 30 years to catch up in the NB market and finally overtake Boeing. Good Boeing was really passive in that segment. Waiting another 15 years to launch something competitive into the NB market that can actually take back market share could push them close to the point where it will take too long to serve that segment economically.

If we have COMAC taking 10% share of the NB market, we could end up at 64% Airbus, 10% Comac, 24% Boeing, and 2% EMB. We are already at roughly 60/40 but over the next 2-3 years Airbus will increase the lead as an aftermath of the MAX grounding and reduced output of 737s.

It will be hard for Boeing to claim back ground if they wait too long with a compelling offer in the 150-200 seat market. Airbus could lock that segment in if they push out a good aircraft while Boeing is still sorting out the MoM. Then Boeing is pressured to launch some answer fast again (for the third time in a row). It worked with the NG but it was a few years behind the A320 and them years gave Airbus the entry into the NB-Market. Then Boeing was behind with the MAX vs NEO and lead to a costly grounding due to rushing the design, and gave the NB-Market lead to Airbus. If they have to rush a solution out again, it could hand Airbus a commanding lead for the next 30 years. That is a dangerous game. The story of McDD comes to mind.


Sure Comac's sales will all come from Boeing...

You really think Boeing would have pictures circulating around about how they would overcome the compression loads in the floor? If the rumours were true they were going to launch it in 2011 - the odds they have not tested it are very low.

Moonshot? This is not a Moonshot. I thought I described it well enough yesterday that people were finally getting it as no one has rebutted it (if I am right about what it is). This is how you get single aisle economics in an aircraft with two aisles.

It is not a Widebody. Boeing could have two competing proposals on the table.

A pure 3x3 taking into account the latest advances.

Or a 2-3-2 heavily based on the 3x3 that literally could use the same nose section as the 3x3 with a slight flair in height to accommodate a 2-3-2 that may may be a few inches higher in the middle and 8.5" wider on each side to accommodate the bulge by the time you get to the cabin. Quite like what Boeing did by reusing the 757 nose section for the 767 and 777 by extending the section (or that part might be a unique piece) to accommodate the larger passenger compartment.

This thread discusses it viewtopic.php?t=773953

The center section above the wingbox would have a wider circular passenger section on top of it - slightly different dimensions - but absolutely no difference in design concept than the 3x3. The tail would also be the same concept - probably just with larger surfaces due to the shorter body with a bit of flair in width at sides in the beginning of the section to take out extra width of the 2-3-2. The wing would be the same.

Th only parts that would be materially different in concept/loadings would be the parts between the Nose section and the wingbox and the wingbox and the tail.

The nose and tail sections along with the wingbox would be quite rigid due to all the bulkheads in them. You basically just have to join them together with the cabin parts.

Just think of how rigid you can make a Cylinder by putting ends on it.

For the non-standard Cabin sections - you have a Circular Section on top - nothing weird about that - and a circular section on the bottom of about double the radius. You could get enough stiffness out of these sections by basically making the Cargo Compartment into one very strong monolithic keel beam and it's most likely the floor beam/lower frame would be one unique part to help deal with the stresses in the lower floor.

Please grab a ruler and visualize how much 8.5" is and how hard do you think that would be flair out on each side of a 21' Nose section and 37' Tail section.

If Boeing can't engineer that then they might as well close up shop. It must pale in terms of complexity compared to a modern wing that flexes 10+ feet. This would not be a moonshot and could easily work for NSA as well - using a different wingbox/wing/gear/tail/engines and focus on smaller sizes

However they then would torpedo the MAX and have the added pressure of having get up to scale a lot faster with a brand new production process that has never been done at that scale in Carbon.

I would suggest the new 777X composites Wing factory would probably have the capacity to get the NMA going while they prepared a new factory for much higher NSA volumes.

In terms of pressure for Boeing to get out something to replace MAX - I fully expect whatever cross section Boeing chooses will be used for both NMA and NSA. They would be engineered as the same program (with NSA launching a few years after NMA - maybe in 2025) and EIS could possibly be no more than 3 years apart (2030 for NMA, 2032-2033 for NSA).

It might even be possible to have them on the same type certificate as all the systems/cockpit would the same. Kind of like the original 777-200 and 777-300ER - same basic concept - radically different in capability.
 
brindabella
Posts: 757
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:58 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

History tells us that in aviation (likewise in car design and manufacturing) progress is really really slow. You never see extrem movement in multiple areas at the same time. Aircraft look the same since the jet age, and since 40 years more and more CFRP is included. It took until the 787 to have a non metal hull.

Boeing can not aford a one in a million moonshot by changing shape + new manufacturing + new container + new cockpit philosophy + serving a niche market. That is not possible outside of experimental stages because the risk is too high to crash the business. Boeing needs a solid business case to weather the current storm and can only afford to tackle one obstacle (better manufacturing to increase profits) but also faces a second one (new cockpit philosophy). There is not a lot of room to address the other things so in my opinion Boeing will go the conservative way and deliver a solid single aisle to guarantee a money maker.


Yes - a concept that was known about as late as 2002 and possibly earlier might make to EIS around 2030 - about 30 years later. Yes that is slow.


The problem I have with the concept is, that I cant find any pressurized model (like 10:1 or 5:1) built and tested. When we look back the last few years, there were a lot of BWB models etc. built and tested and still nothing has happened that points towards a commercial application in the next 15-20 years.
So I can't really imagine Boeing doing this moonshot without any proper testing in advance of the concept. It would be a very high risk application and I do not see how the BoD would allow this to go ahead.
Calculating it on computers is one thing, but there are always assumptions and conditions put into them models to make it work, and to really get it done you need to build an actual model and test things. As I haven't seen any evidence of that, I think it is too much risk to go straight to commercial application especially in the current environment. Boeing could lose the NB segment (the really profitable one) if things turn out bad (delays, cost overruns, etc.).
Airbus needed 30 years to catch up in the NB market and finally overtake Boeing. Good Boeing was really passive in that segment. Waiting another 15 years to launch something competitive into the NB market that can actually take back market share could push them close to the point where it will take too long to serve that segment economically.

If we have COMAC taking 10% share of the NB market, we could end up at 64% Airbus, 10% Comac, 24% Boeing, and 2% EMB. We are already at roughly 60/40 but over the next 2-3 years Airbus will increase the lead as an aftermath of the MAX grounding and reduced output of 737s.

It will be hard for Boeing to claim back ground if they wait too long with a compelling offer in the 150-200 seat market. Airbus could lock that segment in if they push out a good aircraft while Boeing is still sorting out the MoM. Then Boeing is pressured to launch some answer fast again (for the third time in a row). It worked with the NG but it was a few years behind the A320 and them years gave Airbus the entry into the NB-Market. Then Boeing was behind with the MAX vs NEO and lead to a costly grounding due to rushing the design, and gave the NB-Market lead to Airbus. If they have to rush a solution out again, it could hand Airbus a commanding lead for the next 30 years. That is a dangerous game. The story of McDD comes to mind.


1) well composed.
2) would assume that the problem that you foreshadow wrt the Pressurised model has been solved before now.
3) where the introduction/changeover is concerned, I would expect B to fight like a tiger to keep the MAX selling. Price would be one factor.
Another might be say ... "sure you can order the MoM/NSA. However due to the great popularity of the new products, there is a strict allocation in force - for every MAX purchased you can also order X MoM/NSA."

:D

cheers
 
brindabella
Posts: 757
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:11 pm

morrisond wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Yes - a concept that was known about as late as 2002 and possibly earlier might make to EIS around 2030 - about 30 years later. Yes that is slow.



You ever wonder why this is? Seems like it is a market where a suitable solution is hard to come by, even for engineers and designers at both OEM's.


It also just takes a lot of effort to push the state of the art a bit. Just think how long it has taken to make a Geared Turbo Fan work.

If the rumours were right - this was the cross section or something similar that Boeing was going to use for NSA back in 2011 and the rumours have stayed pretty consistent since then.

They gained a lot of experience with the 787 and the 777X new wing - they are understanding composites a lot better - new composites are available, computing power has multiplied exponentially, Machine learning is helping to make structures lighter and and knowledge has been gained in terms of how to efficiently produce complex composite structures (like the 777X wing) to radically reduce labour hours - maybe it has just taken this long to get to the point where we can start to progress beyond the basic round tube and wing.

Not to belabour it, but I'm going too - one of the main takeaways from that article was realizing how little of the length of the belly of a 2-3-2 would have the floor beam in compression where you would have a big hole in the monolithic floor beam/ lower floor frame for the cargo compartment. Due to all the pressure bulkheads in the ends for things like wheel well and gear bays - those sections should really not have any issues and it should be a lot easier to deal with the loads as they would also probably taper to circular anyways.

Plus then you have the section above the wingbox - the wingbox is essentially rectangular with only a Round cross section above it in the Ostrower Double Circle 2-3-2 concept - just like a 3x3. The leaves only about 50% of the length of an NMA-5 - maybe 20% in front of the wingbox and 30% behind that would have to deal with some non-standard loads. As I laid out above in another post that could be overcome with some innovative thinking - effectively turning the Cargo bay into a large keel beam.

Plus this 2x3x2 is really not that far off round. If it is 168"H x 185"W a circle of equivalent circular diameter would be about 176" x 176" - it's very mildly elliptical. You only have to taper out 8.5" on each side of the aircraft over 22' in the nose to get to round - (I'm sure not that hard to do in 5-6' if you wanted too) and in the tail you have 37' of length to work with. This is not an extreme shape.

Do I think that an NMA that has 9% less skin area, 2% less volume than a comparable capacity/technology 3x3 would weigh less? Probably not - but I don't think it would weigh a lot more - most likely low single digits - as only about 50% of it's length would be non-standard.

Lets go to an extreme - say that the non- standard cabin part is 20% heavier by equivalent Capacity - however those sections would not be 50% of the weight of the aircraft - the wingbox and nose sections and tail have to deal with a lot of loads are probably a high percentage of the weight - call it 60% - so 40% left over for the cabin that is not part of the wingbox - making the NMA fuselage 8% heavier for the same capacity at worst - and it could be a much smaller delta.

I posted a study many times over the last year ( that I can't find now) that shows that an A320 fuselage is about 5% of the MTOW - the study shows that done in carbon this drops to 3%.

So an increase of 8% of 3% is a whopping .24% - if you take an example that is pretty extreme. That is only 500lbs. The NMA could use shorter gear than an equivalent capacity 3x3 to get the same rotation angles - I'm sure you would make that up with the lighter gear and less structure(due to shorter lighter gear) in the wingbox and nose bay/nose gear.

It's a rounding error - and also less than the gain you get from a mild PIP or minor change to wingtips.

It should not be that much more complicated to manufacture as most of it will be automated - and about 50% of the fuselage won't be materially different than a 3x3 - the rest of the aircraft is the same - wings, tail, wingbox and most of the nose once circular. Plus the 2-3-2 will have fewer parts (frames, etc.. than an equivalent capacity 3x3) in the passenger compartment as it's shorter - it will just take design time to make it light and deal with the more complex loads in the non standard sections.

You have to guess that Boeing has not stopped working on refining this 2-3-2 even after NSA was scrapped and have been building and testing cross sections in a secret lab somewhere getting it ready for prime time.

Just like I am sure Airbus is doing as well (working on new concepts). Given that article originated in Germany (On the Double Circle with non-pressurized cargo bay) who knows that that idea didn't come out of Airbus engineers originally anyways?


Much as I admire your presentation, I would counsel caution on the "shorter/lighter gear" argument.

1) as far as we know, the newly-revealed MoM-5 model is in addition to the previously suggested -6 and -7 models.
So the gear will have to allow significant fuse extensions. Can't make it too short!
2) using "shorter gear" as an advantage seems to be heading back towards the 737 problem which has so badly warped development of the successive 737-family iterations.


:cry2:

cheers
 
planecane
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:40 pm

Noshow wrote:
Why has Boeing missed the entire market segment that the A321neo has grown into? Do they need a different way to forecast?
I am not claiming that others don't err as well. A380 comes to my mind.
Boeing can use it's experiences with the 787 and build some lighter weight 767 follow on. And after that the 737 follow on. However it needs newer engines to clearly top those XLRs.


They missed the market segment because the A320NEO series and the American Airlines deal forced them to do the 737MAX instead of waiting to launch the NSA (Y1) as the replacement for the 737NG. In 2010/2011 they did not want to launch a clean sheet because they didn't feel the technology was available to make it enough of a step change in efficiency and intended to continue to sell the 737NG as their narrowbody offering and launch the NSA around now for EIS around 2030. The NSA would have covered the A321NEO market just fine.

The 737 has limitations that don't allow the MAX 9 or MAX 10 to have the payload range of the long range A321s and there is no business case for a model that only targets the A321LR and XLR. I'm sure they could come up with a MAX 8 ER that could meet the range requirements but it will have significantly lower capacity.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:00 pm

morrisond wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
morrisond wrote:

Yes - a concept that was known about as late as 2002 and possibly earlier might make to EIS around 2030 - about 30 years later. Yes that is slow.


The problem I have with the concept is, that I cant find any pressurized model (like 10:1 or 5:1) built and tested. When we look back the last few years, there were a lot of BWB models etc. built and tested and still nothing has happened that points towards a commercial application in the next 15-20 years.
So I can't really imagine Boeing doing this moonshot without any proper testing in advance of the concept. It would be a very high risk application and I do not see how the BoD would allow this to go ahead.
Calculating it on computers is one thing, but there are always assumptions and conditions put into them models to make it work, and to really get it done you need to build an actual model and test things. As I haven't seen any evidence of that, I think it is too much risk to go straight to commercial application especially in the current environment. Boeing could lose the NB segment (the really profitable one) if things turn out bad (delays, cost overruns, etc.).
Airbus needed 30 years to catch up in the NB market and finally overtake Boeing. Good Boeing was really passive in that segment. Waiting another 15 years to launch something competitive into the NB market that can actually take back market share could push them close to the point where it will take too long to serve that segment economically.

If we have COMAC taking 10% share of the NB market, we could end up at 64% Airbus, 10% Comac, 24% Boeing, and 2% EMB. We are already at roughly 60/40 but over the next 2-3 years Airbus will increase the lead as an aftermath of the MAX grounding and reduced output of 737s.

It will be hard for Boeing to claim back ground if they wait too long with a compelling offer in the 150-200 seat market. Airbus could lock that segment in if they push out a good aircraft while Boeing is still sorting out the MoM. Then Boeing is pressured to launch some answer fast again (for the third time in a row). It worked with the NG but it was a few years behind the A320 and them years gave Airbus the entry into the NB-Market. Then Boeing was behind with the MAX vs NEO and lead to a costly grounding due to rushing the design, and gave the NB-Market lead to Airbus. If they have to rush a solution out again, it could hand Airbus a commanding lead for the next 30 years. That is a dangerous game. The story of McDD comes to mind.


Sure Comac's sales will all come from Boeing...

You really think Boeing would have pictures circulating around about how they would overcome the compression loads in the floor? If the rumours were true they were going to launch it in 2011 - the odds they have not tested it are very low.

Moonshot? This is not a Moonshot. I thought I described it well enough yesterday that people were finally getting it as no one has rebutted it (if I am right about what it is). This is how you get single aisle economics in an aircraft with two aisles.

It is not a Widebody. Boeing could have two competing proposals on the table.

A pure 3x3 taking into account the latest advances.

Or a 2-3-2 heavily based on the 3x3 that literally could use the same nose section as the 3x3 with a slight flair in height to accommodate a 2-3-2 that may may be a few inches higher in the middle and 8.5" wider on each side to accommodate the bulge by the time you get to the cabin. Quite like what Boeing did by reusing the 757 nose section for the 767 and 777 by extending the section (or that part might be a unique piece) to accommodate the larger passenger compartment.

This thread discusses it viewtopic.php?t=773953

The center section above the wingbox would have a wider circular passenger section on top of it - slightly different dimensions - but absolutely no difference in design concept than the 3x3. The tail would also be the same concept - probably just with larger surfaces due to the shorter body with a bit of flair in width at sides in the beginning of the section to take out extra width of the 2-3-2. The wing would be the same.

Th only parts that would be materially different in concept/loadings would be the parts between the Nose section and the wingbox and the wingbox and the tail.

The nose and tail sections along with the wingbox would be quite rigid due to all the bulkheads in them. You basically just have to join them together with the cabin parts.

Just think of how rigid you can make a Cylinder by putting ends on it.

For the non-standard Cabin sections - you have a Circular Section on top - nothing weird about that - and a circular section on the bottom of about double the radius. You could get enough stiffness out of these sections by basically making the Cargo Compartment into one very strong monolithic keel beam and it's most likely the floor beam/lower frame would be one unique part to help deal with the stresses in the lower floor.

Please grab a ruler and visualize how much 8.5" is and how hard do you think that would be flair out on each side of a 21' Nose section and 37' Tail section.

If Boeing can't engineer that then they might as well close up shop. It must pale in terms of complexity compared to a modern wing that flexes 10+ feet. This would not be a moonshot and could easily work for NSA as well - using a different wingbox/wing/gear/tail/engines and focus on smaller sizes

However they then would torpedo the MAX and have the added pressure of having get up to scale a lot faster with a brand new production process that has never been done at that scale in Carbon.

I would suggest the new 777X composites Wing factory would probably have the capacity to get the NMA going while they prepared a new factory for much higher NSA volumes.

In terms of pressure for Boeing to get out something to replace MAX - I fully expect whatever cross section Boeing chooses will be used for both NMA and NSA. They would be engineered as the same program (with NSA launching a few years after NMA - maybe in 2025) and EIS could possibly be no more than 3 years apart (2030 for NMA, 2032-2033 for NSA).

It might even be possible to have them on the same type certificate as all the systems/cockpit would the same. Kind of like the original 777-200 and 777-300ER - same basic concept - radically different in capability.


I actually took 5% of Airbus and 5% of Boeing. Right now we have about a 60/40 split in the newest generation NB offer but Airbus will grow that towards a 65/35 lead just because they have double the output of aircraft over the next few years. Now we take 5% of each of them we are at 60/30/10 and also take off a bit for EMB. So yes I must have miscalculated something here.

I really like all your writing and it is nice and makes sense but you write it yourself: Boeing has to take so much into account to create a perfect 200 two class aircraft that is then stuck in size and can only grow upwards and missing on the biggest market (150-200).

The NMA you explain can not become any smaller, or it ends up in the A310 category. You can not shrink the cabin any more than what you propose and adding a smaller wing will also not help because if you shrink it more you have to massively increase the tail to keep the aircraft stable. That thing could never compete vs the sleek aircraft you can produce squeezing the market of the NMA.

All you can do is stretch it so you might have an aircraft-family suited for the 200+ two class market but that is it. It is a moonshot to hope that market will grow big enough to get a good ROI while handing you competitors everything below. And no you can not derive a NSA out of it, because the fuselage is limited. It can not shrink any more economically. (see MAX-7 and A319Neo).

You need to define which family member is perfect and from there you can grow upwards (never downwards). 778?A358?B787-8?A319?MAX-? All not competitive.

So if you make the 200 seat variant the optimal version, you only go bigger from there.

Same for the cockpit, you can put a 757 onto the 767 and 777, but the other way around is not possible. So if Boeing would want to make a single cockpit section for both it would need the NSA first, what would also mean the NSA has to be designed first. So the specs for the NSA would be needed. But if you do all this work then you can also launch it first.

So instead of going for a limited market with a double aisle hoping it will give you enough return while boxing yourself into this market is in my opinion not a wise decision, because it will hand the biggest market to the competitors.

Every year now focusing on this project will automatically leave the MAX segment vulnerable to the competition. The MAX-10 comes in 2024. Boeing wants to sell this aircraft but if they launch NMA before 2024 all the investment into it is gone for nothing. If Boeing on the other hand launches a 130 seat 2 class (MAX-8 replacement) Boeing can lock the MAX replacement market and challenge this segment while still selling MAX-10s. Then in 2028 they can announce two stretches of the 130seater (two class) to a 170 seat (two class) and a 200 seat (two class).

So by 2035 Boeing has a super competitive NB with thousands of orders while still be able to sell MAX (and they can just keep current pricing to also make sure the line rolls until then).
Low risk, high reward. Exactly what every share holder wants.
 
Noshow
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:09 pm

How much money would Boeing need for a program you envision? (As in doing it right from the beginning) And would they get this funding right now?

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