seahawk wrote:

...XLR is not certified, maybe never will be certified.

Would you say the same about the 737 MAX 10 or 777x?

Obviously, I was just using the same negative outlook for the XLR as some use for the MAX or NMA.

morrisond wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

The bulk of the cost in a new design and regulatory hassle is the fuselage/systems and cockpit/software.

You couldn't be more wrong.
Creating a new program is not just designing an aircraft, far from it. The costs of supply chain, tooling, building, data management and personnel are simply enormous. All of this must be certified too.

Not to split hairs - but I did say new design vs program in reference to doing different variants of that common fuselage /systems and cockpit/software as one program. Was I not clear on that?

Presumably though if they share that common core and it's one super big program where the supply chain, tooling (at least most of it could be common), building(plenty of extra space in Everett - NSA and NMA could be built on the same line), data management and personnel would be common amongst the different variants - NSA/NMA and NMA L/XL.

I was assuming people would have made that intuitive leap and I didn't have to go into minute detail about what could be saved by doing it as one program. Sorry you were not able to.

Start doing a different cross sections for NMA and NSA with different systems and cockpits and yes the cost is 2x that of one program vs maybe 1.3-1.5ish.

Sorry, my bad, I didn't get it this way.

I'm not as aware of FAA in comparison of EASA rules for certification/airworthiness, but have a hard time you can get two "different cross sections" variants under the same Type Certificate.
It's already a huge challenge to release a "simple" clean sheet in today's regulatory environment, it would be brave to go with such an ambitious target with two variants while we know both NMA or NSA must be perfectly executed to have a chance to exist in the market for the former, to replace the vital 737 cashcow for the later.
And unfortunately, to unite both under the same TC (if even possible) there will be trade off to be accepted, undermining directly the efficiency of the thing.

We'll see, but right now I really can't see such scenario unfolding.

I think he means type certificate for pilots not the FAA certification of the plane itself.

seahawk wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

seahawk wrote:

How often do you need a spare for a structural item? Sure the MLG is different, but apart from that?

It applies to everything, even in the construction/manufacturing.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... _ckEsfdN6o

A good estimate of the learning factor is 87% for each doubling. If for example there were 1000 examples of an item made that were to all intents and purposes identical and it had a cost of X then it was decided that it would be better to optimise 50% for one job and 50% for another job then it would be reasonable to say that the cost of each one would be 15% higher (1/0.87). If however we were to say that they had 80% commonality then 80% of the 1000 would be at 0.8X of the price but the remaining 20% would be at 15% higher or 23% cost meaning the cost of each variant would be 103% of the base price. Whilst this isn't the be all and end all for costs it gives a good representation on the levels of cost savings for manufacturing scale changes and shows why very niche variants are so costly.

Fred

I know, but if their all digital design is too achieve something in combination with CFRP and additive manufacturing, it should be changing this rule.

Not really, its these things that make this rule in the first place.
Lets say I want to make a model aircraft at an unusual scale (a hawker hunter 2 seat trainer at 1:47) but I want it to be as cheap as possible per unit to a given standard.
If I want a single copy, I get a skilled craftsman to build it and it costs me $1000
If I want 2 of them I get a skilled craftsman to do it and because of the practice on the first one the second one is quicker and they cost me $1700 for two
If I want 10 then the craftsman builds a jig to make sure that they are very easy to get accuracy every time.
If I want 100 then we build one and then make a silicone and fibreglass mold for it for which we may need to change some of the surface features and add additional work but the process of making them then get quicker (but the mold wears out)
If I want 1,000 of them then we create the model in 3D CAD and then mill a mold from a billet of steel
if I want 10,000 of them we make a multipart mold with automated injection
if I want 100,000 then we make a multipart mold with electroetched surfaces thats hardened and with trace heating and cooling
if I want 1,000,000 then then we make a multipart mold with electroetched surfaces thats hardened and with trace heating and cooling and tailor the plastic for the specific use case and
if I want 10,000,000 then I buy my own factory
if I want 100,000,000 then I add a R&D department to my factory

Being all digital is (quite normal) but also not a small investment and as such fits in the the hierarchy of reduced recurring costs but up front costs (I don't want to say capital because often its time based). CFRP? I don't think it fall outside these rules?
Additive manufacturing, again, probably doesn't fall outside these rules but probably adds another layer in there, what it does do is turn the CAD designer into the tradesman effectively, each design needs to still be "carved" on the computer. A one off part is still expensive because of the time and effort needed to design it, if you want to make 100 widgets? additive may well not be the cheapest. in the above example it may be that the additive manufacturing effectively replaced making the silicone mold, the rates aren't that scaleable like higher volume methods. With aircraft you get to the level of best vs cheapest. I would wager that the 3dprinted walls on the A321 are, whilst lighter than a honeycomb sandwich, more expensive to make. It was pointed out to me by someone I know in the plastics industry that I should remember that additive manufacturing isn't new, my house was built in ~1780 and is made from an additive manufacturing method, one stone on top of another.

What the additive manufacturing gives you in this instance is a convenient method for applying different designs quickly, the designs themselves are still expensive, there are ways to get that design making process cheaper per unit but those involve investment in the software....
A pencil is $1
A pencil and ruler and tri-square and protractor are $10
A drawing board is $100
A computer is $1000
A computer with CAD is $10000
A computer with Catia (good CAD) is $30,0000
A computer with Catia and an engineer to drive it is $200,000 per year
A group of engineers with Catia and a 25gbps connection to a central server and the system administrator is $4m/year
A group of engineers with Catia with an AI plugin for automated optimisation and a 25gbps connection to a central server and the system administrator and a university program with a coordinator and 6phd students and professor as difficult to pin down a a greasy cat (sorry, internal rant) is $15m/year for 10 years before there is a useful output.

We have moved from a one off production technique to systematised approach to a jig approach and now we are at semi automated approach. (component manufacture is semi automated (layup and drilling) but assembly is still by human and jig. Automation like we see in the automotive industry takes an order of magnitude more production output to be feasible.

What I'd like to see is part count reduction, we talk about "out of autoclave" and the "glue together" for the TF-X for me this opens an opportunity for larger, monolithic parts glued together like a huge airfix model similar to the carbon Tubs found on modern super cars. We can all dream...

Fred

seahawk wrote:

Obviously, I was just using the same negative outlook for the XLR as some use for the MAX or NMA.

Isn't the negative outlook created by the delays caused by cert efforts according to the communication by Boeing? Did we here something similar from Airbus regarding the A321XLR program?

The latest news of this month suggests everything is progressing according to plans and nothing seem in the way of the programs EIS. https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories ... sites.html

Maybe I missed something...

flipdewaf wrote:

It applies to everything, even in..
..
We can all dream...
Fred

Food for thought on a sunny friday afternoon.

flipdewaf wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Boeing can't offer "just another NB craft" and make it stick that this offer is so much better than an A321xyz.
It must be a twin aisle design where you can talk about "never before, best of breed, ... and thus Super".

It's more along the lines of Boeing (or any airframer for that matter) will find it difficult to sell a new aircraft (that isn't a derivative) that completely replaces an existing and still selling product.

That was the intention with the 787, wasn't it?
Displace the A330, "kill it".
And the sales storm was effected with exactly the mechanics I described.
GFC and project (mis)management didn't leverage the sales advance as intended.

flipdewaf wrote:

< good enumeration>
Fred

State of the art at Airbus ( and Dassault as prime software provider ) seems to be

"a fully parametric complete airplane design system."

change something and the software will propagate that change and its fall out over the complete design.

That is not just good CAD. That is a rather major step forward.

Another path of progress is modularized simulation in software mergeable/swapable at most points/modules with real hardware.
( and that apparently in a distributed hybrid system setup.)

DenverTed wrote:

Does Boeing need a mid-range plane to beat the XLR flying transAtlantic, or does it need to beat the A322 flying Hawaii, premium transcon / JetBlue MInt, hub to hub, and Spirit and Frontier with 250 passengers?

I would think a design that can do both effectively & competitively. Hopefully even better, by having a lower weight and cost level than the 51t A321XLR and a 54t A322NEO.

WIederling wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Boeing can't offer "just another NB craft" and make it stick that this offer is so much better than an A321xyz.
It must be a twin aisle design where you can talk about "never before, best of breed, ... and thus Super".

It's more along the lines of Boeing (or any airframer for that matter) will find it difficult to sell a new aircraft (that isn't a derivative) that completely replaces an existing and still selling product.

That was the intention with the 787, wasn't it?
Displace the A330, "kill it".
And the sales storm was effected with exactly the mechanics I described.
GFC and project (mis)management didn't leverage the sales advance as intended.

Yes, I wasn't clear, existing product of your own. pitching the new design between existing models allows the existing model to have a less steep decline in sales when the new model is introduced helping smooth cash flows,

Fred

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Poor Airbus, unable to make A220 at industrial volume and price points after putting $1B more into the program, not willing to take the financial hit needed to win the once in a generation deal that Kessje and others suggested was needed to get the orders to scale up its industrial base, unable to use volume to reduce cost for the current backlog priced at a loss, unable to provide the environment needed to launch the A220-500 any time soon...

Many feel the 737MAX has made a real strong come-back recently...

And many like to change the topic rather than admit the narrative they've been pushing for years was wrong, a set of potentially game-changing strategic moves defeated because Airbus wasn't willing to take a financial hit to advance the A220's trajectory and Boeing was able to use the production and pricing power they've had all along.

keesje wrote:

I have no doubt Boeing could build a good NMA, carrying 220-300 people over 5000NM. My biggest fear is 130-220 seats could get real messy for Boeing and the airlines would face reduced choice and competition for the next 12 years. I Boeing gets back to 737 build rate 50, the current backlog is gone in 2026. Who is going to order thousands 737 MAX more? The US airlines, Chinese, Europeans? I think airlines will push Boeing into a new better single aisle, and it better be competive with the 51t, A321NEO /LR/ XLR. .

The US airlines, Chinese, Europeans and the rest of the world's airlines will order thousands more MAXes.

In particular it will be nice to see MAX in KLM's impressive livery.

flipdewaf wrote:

seahawk wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

It applies to everything, even in the construction/manufacturing.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... _ckEsfdN6o

A good estimate of the learning factor is 87% for each doubling. If for example there were 1000 examples of an item made that were to all intents and purposes identical and it had a cost of X then it was decided that it would be better to optimise 50% for one job and 50% for another job then it would be reasonable to say that the cost of each one would be 15% higher (1/0.87). If however we were to say that they had 80% commonality then 80% of the 1000 would be at 0.8X of the price but the remaining 20% would be at 15% higher or 23% cost meaning the cost of each variant would be 103% of the base price. Whilst this isn't the be all and end all for costs it gives a good representation on the levels of cost savings for manufacturing scale changes and shows why very niche variants are so costly.

Fred

I know, but if their all digital design is too achieve something in combination with CFRP and additive manufacturing, it should be changing this rule.

Not really, its these things that make this rule in the first place.
Lets say I want to make a model aircraft at an unusual scale (a hawker hunter 2 seat trainer at 1:47) but I want it to be as cheap as possible per unit to a given standard.
.
.
Fred

I mostly agree with your points, but Boeing claims to have mastered all digital construction and is ready for a breakthrough in manufacturing, so if it is true, they should be able to deliver.

Grizzly410 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

You couldn't be more wrong.
Creating a new program is not just designing an aircraft, far from it. The costs of supply chain, tooling, building, data management and personnel are simply enormous. All of this must be certified too.

Not to split hairs - but I did say new design vs program in reference to doing different variants of that common fuselage /systems and cockpit/software as one program. Was I not clear on that?

Presumably though if they share that common core and it's one super big program where the supply chain, tooling (at least most of it could be common), building(plenty of extra space in Everett - NSA and NMA could be built on the same line), data management and personnel would be common amongst the different variants - NSA/NMA and NMA L/XL.

I was assuming people would have made that intuitive leap and I didn't have to go into minute detail about what could be saved by doing it as one program. Sorry you were not able to.

Start doing a different cross sections for NMA and NSA with different systems and cockpits and yes the cost is 2x that of one program vs maybe 1.3-1.5ish.

Sorry, my bad, I didn't get it this way.

I'm not as aware of FAA in comparison of EASA rules for certification/airworthiness, but have a hard time you can get two "different cross sections" variants under the same Type Certificate.
It's already a huge challenge to release a "simple" clean sheet in today's regulatory environment, it would be brave to go with such an ambitious target with two variants while we know both NMA or NSA must be perfectly executed to have a chance to exist in the market for the former, to replace the vital 737 cashcow for the later.
And unfortunately, to unite both under the same TC (if even possible) there will be trade off to be accepted, undermining directly the efficiency of the thing.

We'll see, but right now I really can't see such scenario unfolding.

I'm assuming one cross section 2-3-2 and nose systems architecture for all Variants - NSA, NSA-ER (AKA NMA-5) and NMA 6/7 with a different wing/wingbox than NMA-5.

NSA would presumably have different wing than NMA-5 as well. The variation would would all be in the wings/tail/gear/engines.

flipdewaf wrote:

What I'd like to see is part count reduction, we talk about "out of autoclave" and the "glue together" for the TF-X for me this opens an opportunity for larger, monolithic parts glued together like a huge airfix model similar to the carbon Tubs found on modern super cars. We can all dream...

Fred

That would be neat. Cue the Monolithic Floor beam/lower lobe(frame) to make it easier to deal with Hoop stresses on a Double Circle 2-3-2. Then combine that with a shorter fuselage vs 3x3 of similar capacity to reduce the number of those sections, stringers and upper frames by at least 16.7% reducing time of assembly.

State of the art at Airbus ( and Dassault as prime software provider ) seems to be

"a fully parametric complete airplane design system."

change something and the software will propagate that change and its fall out over the complete design.

That is not just good CAD. That is a rather major step forward.

Parametric CAD programs have been around for quite a long time, they're nothing new. The ability to pollinate changes throughout the design is quite useful, hence the reason that parametric CAD software is again, old news. And actually, there are times when it can be a negative point, as changes made early in a design pollinate downwards in unintended ways - as a part time CAD guy when I'm not in the classroom, I can quote chapter and verse on those unintended consequences!

What I think will be unique is when we can make aircraft construction fully modular, as its becoming in the shipbuilding industry, allowing manufacturers to CAD up and splice certified sections and wings together to suit specific operators' needs. That's a long way off, but its an intriguing possibility. I'm thinking back to the early days of the 707 when Boeing could create versions for nearly any customer - engines, tails, fuselage lengths - depending upon their needs and those of their countries' regulators. It took quite a lot of effort for Boeing to do this, but it also cemented the 707's pride of place all over the world. Modular parametric design just might allow for the same thing.

I would be carefull putting all my eggs in the innovation basket in this industry. Breakthroughs, gamechangers, paradigm changes and amazing technology enablers seldom reach mass production. Often greenwashing, justifications play a role.


Source: keesje

keesje wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

Does Boeing need a mid-range plane to beat the XLR flying transAtlantic, or does it need to beat the A322 flying Hawaii, premium transcon / JetBlue MInt, hub to hub, and Spirit and Frontier with 250 passengers?

I would think a design that can do both effectively & competitively. Hopefully even better, by having a lower weight and cost level than the 51t A321XLR and a 54t A322NEO.

I guess my question would be when does a wider wingspan become competitive? Like morrisond says, there is a two wing set solution. Whether that is single aisle or twin aisle is another story. I think a fixed 36m wing is a given at up to 3K range, but maybe they can get away with 38m. For 3K to 5K range, they can use up to a 52m wing with a D gate or folding tips, if that "buys it's way onto the aircraft".
One would think that Boeing could easily better the A321 XLR at 4K range with an optimal design wing for that range.

DenverTed wrote:

keesje wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

Does Boeing need a mid-range plane to beat the XLR flying transAtlantic, or does it need to beat the A322 flying Hawaii, premium transcon / JetBlue MInt, hub to hub, and Spirit and Frontier with 250 passengers?

I would think a design that can do both effectively & competitively. Hopefully even better, by having a lower weight and cost level than the 51t A321XLR and a 54t A322NEO.

I guess my question would be when does a wider wingspan become competitive? Like morrisond says, there is a two wing set solution. Whether that is single aisle or twin aisle is another story. I think a fixed 36m wing is a given at up to 3K range, but maybe they can get away with 38m. For 3K to 5K range, they can use up to a 52m wing with a D gate or folding tips, if that "buys it's way onto the aircraft".
One would think that Boeing could easily better the A321 XLR at 4K range with an optimal design wing for that range.

Yes - or even three wings.

NSA 36-38M non-folding
NMA-5(NSA-ER) 42-44M folding down to 36-38M with strengthened same size wingbox as NSA
NMA 6-7 - 52M wing (or larger with folding tech) and different wingbox.

Yes - no idea if it's 2-3-2 or 3x3 - but I'm pretty sure 3x3 won't work for NMA 6-7 at 55-65M in length. 753 was 54.4M and I think the common wisdom was that was too long.

Having different wings, ranges also means, wing boxes, controls, systems, landing gears and engines to be really competitive.


source: keesje

If you do all that, going for a real optimum fuselage isn't that big of an extra step/investment anymore, certainly if you plan to produce thousands.

keesje wrote:

Having different wings, ranges also means, wing boxes, controls, systems, landing gears and engines to be really competitive.


source: keesje

If you do all that, going for a real optimum fuselage isn't that big of an extra step/investment anymore, certainly if you plan to produce thousands.

Yes it does mean a lot of different things - but as it would be mainly electric and FBW - controls are the same - actuators right sized - Environmental packs probably just more of them.

The real volume is the NSA - NMA-5 maybe 15-20% and NMA - 6/7 10/15% - but larger margin. You save a lot on the lower volume products by making the tech/systems and cross section the same as NSA. Don't do that and you loose economy of scale.

Common control system - common production management/personal/data/supply lines/tooling possibly and at least same line for NSA and NMA-5 and as Grizzly pointed out that is where a lot of the cost is. I would assume Boeing would build the Wing/wingbox for all three and that could be done in Everett.

Certifying an NSA based off of NMA-5(NSA-ER) should be quite simple if wingbox is the same dimension. Of course it would have new lighter gear and Engines with less thrust.

Although Wingbox/wing, gear and engines would be different certifying NMA-6/7 shouldn't be that much harder than going from 777-300 to ER and less hard than going from 77W to 777X which had a lot of new systems.

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

What I'd like to see is part count reduction, we talk about "out of autoclave" and the "glue together" for the TF-X for me this opens an opportunity for larger, monolithic parts glued together like a huge airfix model similar to the carbon Tubs found on modern super cars. We can all dream...

Fred

That would be neat. Cue the Monolithic Floor beam/lower lobe(frame) to make it easier to deal with Hoop stresses on a Double Circle 2-3-2. Then combine that with a shorter fuselage vs 3x3 of similar capacity to reduce the number of those sections, stringers and upper frames by at least 16.7% reducing time of assembly.

Lol, what is a hoop stress?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What announcement would make executives in Toulouse and Hamburg sit up straight, pay attention and make calls? Probably not another $15B MoM defibrillation.

flipdewaf wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

What I'd like to see is part count reduction, we talk about "out of autoclave" and the "glue together" for the TF-X for me this opens an opportunity for larger, monolithic parts glued together like a huge airfix model similar to the carbon Tubs found on modern super cars. We can all dream...

Fred

That would be neat. Cue the Monolithic Floor beam/lower lobe(frame) to make it easier to deal with Hoop stresses on a Double Circle 2-3-2. Then combine that with a shorter fuselage vs 3x3 of similar capacity to reduce the number of those sections, stringers and upper frames by at least 16.7% reducing time of assembly.

Lol, what is a hoop stress?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sorry - others were using that term or bad memory on my part - what is the term for the fuselage wanting to return to a circle?

keesje wrote:

What announcement would make executives in Toulouse and Hamburg sit up straight, pay attention and make calls? Probably not another $15B MoM defibrillation.

Not if it is something crazy like an 7W-8W with MTOW 175-200T

But an NMA AKA NSA-ER with MTOW somewhere in the 110-130T range (either 3x3 or 2-3-2) that could clearly be downsized (different wing/gear/ engines) and held the promise of being able to be produced at quite a low cost - that would cause them some consternation and force them to consider their counter move.

keesje wrote:

What announcement would make executives in Toulouse and Hamburg sit up straight, pay attention and make calls? Probably not another $15B MoM defibrillation.

I think the competitors would laugh if Boeing ditched the MAX after going through all the pain of getting it back into service, then tried to get their customers to buy its replacement right after Boeing screwed them by dropping the MAX, same for the supply chain having all their investments trashed, then had everyone wait while they developed, tested and ramped up the MAX replacement while they had nothing to sell smaller than 787 for several years while also having to pour cash into a clean sheet.

I think Boeing will do what makes them, their customers and their partners the most money, and won't worry about the sleep habits in TLS or XFW.

IMO this means addressing the gap above MAX10 first, and then addressing a MAX replacement.

I don't think a Max replacement will occur before 2035.

I do believe that this will be a version of the NMA/MOM concept aircraft.

I may be wrong; but, I think Boeing will publicly move forward on that within 18 months from now to enter service in the 2027-2029 time frame (a question is how much of the previous design work they can use for the canceled version that was ready to be presented to the board for approval last spring).

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

What announcement would make executives in Toulouse and Hamburg sit up straight, pay attention and make calls? Probably not another $15B MoM defibrillation.

Not if it is something crazy like an 7W-8W with MTOW 175-200T

But an NMA AKA NSA-ER with MTOW somewhere in the 110-130T range (either 3x3 or 2-3-2) that could clearly be downsized (different wing/gear/ engines) and held the promise of being able to be produced at quite a low cost - that would cause them some consternation and force them to consider their counter move.

Am modular family of aircraft, a all digital design and a highly optimized and automated production - it will make Airbus very scared. Boeing is about to revolutionize the industry as we know it.

seahawk wrote:

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

What announcement would make executives in Toulouse and Hamburg sit up straight, pay attention and make calls? Probably not another $15B MoM defibrillation.

Not if it is something crazy like an 7W-8W with MTOW 175-200T

But an NMA AKA NSA-ER with MTOW somewhere in the 110-130T range (either 3x3 or 2-3-2) that could clearly be downsized (different wing/gear/ engines) and held the promise of being able to be produced at quite a low cost - that would cause them some consternation and force them to consider their counter move.

Am modular family of aircraft, a all digital design and a highly optimized and automated production - it will make Airbus very scared. Boeing is about to revolutionize the industry as we know it.

Absolutely. Just as they did with the 787. So much revolution everywhere.

seahawk wrote:

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

What announcement would make executives in Toulouse and Hamburg sit up straight, pay attention and make calls? Probably not another $15B MoM defibrillation.

Not if it is something crazy like an 7W-8W with MTOW 175-200T

But an NMA AKA NSA-ER with MTOW somewhere in the 110-130T range (either 3x3 or 2-3-2) that could clearly be downsized (different wing/gear/ engines) and held the promise of being able to be produced at quite a low cost - that would cause them some consternation and force them to consider their counter move.

Am modular family of aircraft, a all digital design and a highly optimized and automated production - it will make Airbus very scared. Boeing is about to revolutionize the industry as we know it.

This does not apply to a duopoly where your manufacturer launches 3 new models while the competition does nothing. It is not like that in the real world.

DL220MSP wrote:

seahawk wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Not if it is something crazy like an 7W-8W with MTOW 175-200T

But an NMA AKA NSA-ER with MTOW somewhere in the 110-130T range (either 3x3 or 2-3-2) that could clearly be downsized (different wing/gear/ engines) and held the promise of being able to be produced at quite a low cost - that would cause them some consternation and force them to consider their counter move.

Am modular family of aircraft, a all digital design and a highly optimized and automated production - it will make Airbus very scared. Boeing is about to revolutionize the industry as we know it.

This does not apply to a duopoly where your manufacturer launches 3 new models while the competition does nothing. It is not like that in the real world.

Not only this. There is not even a large incentive to revolutionise for any of the markets entrenched players. Disruption is only a favourable outcome for a new player or a player about to be marginalised. Boeing and Airbus are obviously neither.

The MAX will continue to sell, market share will stabilise between the competitors and anyone expecting a revolution will be in for a tremendous disappointment. As long as we are flying tubes and wings revolution is not in the cards.

But yeah, if people wanna dream...

seahawk wrote:

morrisond wrote:

keesje wrote:

What announcement would make executives in Toulouse and Hamburg sit up straight, pay attention and make calls? Probably not another $15B MoM defibrillation.

Not if it is something crazy like an 7W-8W with MTOW 175-200T

But an NMA AKA NSA-ER with MTOW somewhere in the 110-130T range (either 3x3 or 2-3-2) that could clearly be downsized (different wing/gear/ engines) and held the promise of being able to be produced at quite a low cost - that would cause them some consternation and force them to consider their counter move.

Am modular family of aircraft, a all digital design and a highly optimized and automated production - it will make Airbus very scared. Boeing is about to revolutionize the industry as we know it.

I assume that you post this for effect ........

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

seahawk wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Not if it is something crazy like an 7W-8W with MTOW 175-200T

But an NMA AKA NSA-ER with MTOW somewhere in the 110-130T range (either 3x3 or 2-3-2) that could clearly be downsized (different wing/gear/ engines) and held the promise of being able to be produced at quite a low cost - that would cause them some consternation and force them to consider their counter move.

Am modular family of aircraft, a all digital design and a highly optimized and automated production - it will make Airbus very scared. Boeing is about to revolutionize the industry as we know it.

I assume that you post this for effect ........

Rgds

If they aim for less, I see no point in the NMA at all. The MAX still has at least 10 years ahead of it and the -10 should not be that uncompetitive. Above that they have the 787, which should win against the A330NEO and the 787 also needs a constant flow of orders to keep the line busy. If the NAM is to make sense it needs to offer a breakthrough, otherwise Boeing can easily do nothing and wait till the technology is ready to replace the MAX. If you look at the average life on an airliner design of at least 25 years, there are too many possibly disrupting technologies on the horizon to do a normal design now.

Revelation wrote:

Poor Airbus, unable to make A220 at industrial volume and price points after putting $1B more into the program, not willing to take the financial hit needed to win the once in a generation deal that Kessje and others suggested was needed to get the orders to scale up its industrial base, unable to use volume to reduce cost for the current backlog priced at a loss, unable to provide the environment needed to launch the A220-500 any time soon...

If that is the best comeback you have against Airbus and the A220, it really must be desperate being a Boeing fanboy right now. It will get better guys, keep fighting your corner though, no matter how difficult it is to find positives.

I mean we are at a situation where the proposed solution for Boeing is a 7-abreast twin aisle that is only slightly wider than the A320. This will mean 0 cargo can be loaded as that space will be taken by passenger bags and passenger comfort for these proposed 8 hour plus flights will be unbearable for the plebs not able to buy W or J seats, but who cares about them. Definitely not the airlines or the OEM's. I mean its not like Boeing has had to widen a new offering to offer more comfort in Y for passengers. I imagine if that was the case this configuration would look really silly. Thank goodness Boeing has not done that, ever.

seahawk wrote:

If they aim for less, I see no point in the NMA at all. The MAX still has at least 10 years ahead of it and the -10 should not be that uncompetitive. Above that they have the 787, which should win against the A330NEO and the 787 also needs a constant flow of orders to keep the line busy. If the NAM is to make sense it needs to offer a breakthrough, otherwise Boeing can easily do nothing and wait till the technology is ready to replace the MAX. If you look at the average life on an airliner design of at least 25 years, there are too many possibly disrupting technologies on the horizon to do a normal design now.

I think Boeing needs to worry about getting their existing programs running smoothly before they start thinking about revolutionising the industry. They are also cutting 787 production to one line so their thirst for future orders is not as high as it would have been with 2 lines. Yes they can expand at Charleston, but it also allows them to spread their current backlog further along and not have to reduce margins to win orders. Once they get the 787 delivering without problems out of Charleston and get the MAX certified and delivering and the 777X certified and delivered, all of that in the next 4-5 years, maybe then they can focus on the NMA.

I think there are some evolutionary enhancements Boeing could use to regain market preference.

Shelving transatlantic, technology miracles, twin aisle and 280 seat ambitions would be part of that.

Because apparently the airlines are not really asking for that.

Maybe a separate topic. So Rev doesn't have post hundreds of replies to keep this one going

Shelving transatlantic? Did you mean to say transpacific?
Airbus is doing the XLR because there is market for transatlantic range aircraft.

enzo011 wrote:

I think Boeing needs to worry about getting their existing programs running smoothly before they start thinking about revolutionising the industry. They are also cutting 787 production to one line so their thirst for future orders is not as high as it would have been with 2 lines. Yes they can expand at Charleston, but it also allows them to spread their current backlog further along and not have to reduce margins to win orders. Once they get the 787 delivering without problems out of Charleston and get the MAX certified and delivering and the 777X certified and delivered, all of that in the next 4-5 years, maybe then they can focus on the NMA.

But that is just the final assembly, not the whole supply line. Boeing should nave no interest to see the rate of the 787 fall below 6/month, as then their economy of scale advantage over the A330NEo shrinks.

keesje wrote:

I think there are some evolutionary enhancements Boeing could use to regain market preference.

Shelving transatlantic, technology miracles, twin aisle and 280 seat ambitions would be part of that.

Because apparently the airlines are not really asking for that.

Maybe a separate topic. So Rev doesn't have post hundreds of replies to keep this one going

Other than possibly a new unique Double Circle Cross Section that they have been working on for probably 15+ years and Airbus would have no problem doing either - it appears as though NMA is just an evolution of the 787. Nothing really revolutionary. I does not appear as though they are aiming for 280 seats either in the NMA-5. Assuming same seating density as A322 - maybe 224 31" Y seats vs 216 for the 322. An NMA5.5 that is a stretch of NMA 5 with 5,000NM range plus or minus a few hundred with the NMA-5 somewhere around 5,500Nm could be more like 245.

The real advance as they have said many times will be how they assemble it and using what they have learned on 787.

That is where the revolution will be and what will scare Airbus the most with the disadvantage of their distributed production locations which can't be nearly as efficient due to all the overhead.

enzo011 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Poor Airbus, unable to make A220 at industrial volume and price points after putting $1B more into the program, not willing to take the financial hit needed to win the once in a generation deal that Kessje and others suggested was needed to get the orders to scale up its industrial base, unable to use volume to reduce cost for the current backlog priced at a loss, unable to provide the environment needed to launch the A220-500 any time soon...

If that is the best comeback you have against Airbus and the A220, it really must be desperate being a Boeing fanboy right now. It will get better guys, keep fighting your corner though, no matter how difficult it is to find positives.

I mean we are at a situation where the proposed solution for Boeing is a 7-abreast twin aisle that is only slightly wider than the A320. This will mean 0 cargo can be loaded as that space will be taken by passenger bags and passenger comfort for these proposed 8 hour plus flights will be unbearable for the plebs not able to buy W or J seats, but who cares about them. Definitely not the airlines or the OEM's. I mean its not like Boeing has had to widen a new offering to offer more comfort in Y for passengers. I imagine if that was the case this configuration would look really silly. Thank goodness Boeing has not done that, ever.

seahawk wrote:

If they aim for less, I see no point in the NMA at all. The MAX still has at least 10 years ahead of it and the -10 should not be that uncompetitive. Above that they have the 787, which should win against the A330NEO and the 787 also needs a constant flow of orders to keep the line busy. If the NAM is to make sense it needs to offer a breakthrough, otherwise Boeing can easily do nothing and wait till the technology is ready to replace the MAX. If you look at the average life on an airliner design of at least 25 years, there are too many possibly disrupting technologies on the horizon to do a normal design now.

I think Boeing needs to worry about getting their existing programs running smoothly before they start thinking about revolutionising the industry. They are also cutting 787 production to one line so their thirst for future orders is not as high as it would have been with 2 lines. Yes they can expand at Charleston, but it also allows them to spread their current backlog further along and not have to reduce margins to win orders. Once they get the 787 delivering without problems out of Charleston and get the MAX certified and delivering and the 777X certified and delivered, all of that in the next 4-5 years, maybe then they can focus on the NMA.

What do you mean "no cargo" for NMA? Versus an 321 XLR which uses a bunch of it's cargo area for fuel it should have quite good cargo ability. You would assume they will size the wingbox and wings appropriately in a clean sheet to carry the right amount of fuel without impinging upon the cargo area.

Plus if the NMA does have the same cross section as NSA - no real problem to intro a new Cargo Container, especially if they build an NMA with a 52ishM wing later on. Assuming 2-3-2 and a bit more fuselage height you could expand an LD3-45 by about 30" in width and a few inches in height - meaning each container would hold about 50% more vs having about 10-20% less length in the cargo bay.

Lots of room for cargo.

flipdewaf wrote:

Lol, what is a hoop stress?

circumferential forces in s pressure vessels skin caused by positive pressure differential.
( what you need the iron hoop for on a wooden barrel.

Now what he meant was the forces needed to keep that same vessel in a shape deviating from the
circular form ( ... and I don't know the tag for that either. )

I don't expect a flat oval X-section on an airplane to come up in real hardware.
If something in that direction it will be circle segments of various diameter(s) held in form
by flooring between intersecting lines. designers will not be happy if this holds a compression load.
( which imu seems to be unavoidable.)

seahawk wrote:

astuteman wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Am modular family of aircraft, a all digital design and a highly optimized and automated production - it will make Airbus very scared. Boeing is about to revolutionize the industry as we know it.

I assume that you post this for effect ........

Rgds

[...] there are too many possibly disrupting technologies on the horizon to do a normal design now.

Serious question: what do you believe those disrupting technologies might be? Specific, if you may, not just saying some digital work and some new manufacturing technology.

CRJockey wrote:

seahawk wrote:

astuteman wrote:

I assume that you post this for effect ........

Rgds

[...] there are too many possibly disrupting technologies on the horizon to do a normal design now.

Serious question: what do you believe those disrupting technologies might be? Specific, if you may, not just saying some digital work and some new manufacturing technology.

The big question for the future is fuel. What kind and at what price. Even if you use green kerosene replacement, the engines still need to be adjusted to get the most out of it. If you look at solutions with a lesser energy density you aircraft design needs to change. If hybrid or electrical solutions come online and work for <500nm flights, it will seriously effect the roles of the jets.

morrisond wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

I know everyone here is talking about capacity and size. But don't you find it weird that their targeted range for the NMA is 5,000nmi at max?
While B767-300ER have close to 6,000nmi?

If you think about it. Flights from Dallas to Cities like Rome or Berlin. And San Francisco to Madrid or Zurich reach up to ~4,500nmi to ~5,000nmi.
So it seems like they are more focusing on competing with A321XLR than they are at replacing the popular B767-300ER. Do they gave us information to why the range is soo small?

I think you might see that longer ranged longer Fuselage aircraft later with a different wingbox/wing, gear engines. It would be too big/too capable vs an A321/322XLR competitor and not competitive enough at shorter ranges.

They are calling this the 757 replacement not an 767 replacement.

Basically it appears as though they are doing an NSA-ER first and the real NMA will come later (after the smaller winged NSA to replace the MAX) - if my crystal ball is right/ reading the tea leaves correctly. But who knows - it's all speculation and Boeing could have two more CEO's between now and 2030 so anything could happen.

Well, my thought process would be, why do they need to build a widebody to replace B757 and to compete with A321XLR? Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper for them to created a brand new narrowbody rather than a complex ovoid 7-abreast widebody that would have weird length and width ratio to compete with A321XLR?

If they want to replace B767-200 and B767-300ER, then the 7-abreast design would make more sense. But if they want to focus on replacing B757-200/-300 to compete with A321XLR. Then a single aisle would work better.

ewt340 wrote:

Well, my thought process would be, why do they need to build a widebody to replace B757 and to compete with A321XLR? Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper for them to created a brand new narrowbody rather than a complex ovoid 7-abreast widebody that would have weird length and width ratio to compete with A321XLR?

It's not that complicated: they feel the MAX will hold its own in the small narrowbody space for the next decade plus, and they have nothing to offer above MAX10 and below 788.

A side benefit will be to roll out their new production methodology without needing to target 50/month like a narrow body, and not tax their engine partners by killing off their investments in LEAP and GTF before they have had some time to get a return on their investment.

ewt340 wrote:

If they want to replace B767-200 and B767-300ER, then the 7-abreast design would make more sense. But if they want to focus on replacing B757-200/-300 to compete with A321XLR. Then a single aisle would work better.

They want/need to offer something better than A321XLR and A322. Something to not just replace current aircraft, but something that can open up new city pairs and grow the market.

seahawk wrote:

astuteman wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Am modular family of aircraft, a all digital design and a highly optimized and automated production - it will make Airbus very scared. Boeing is about to revolutionize the industry as we know it.

I assume that you post this for effect ........

Rgds

If they aim for less, I see no point in the NMA at all. The MAX still has at least 10 years ahead of it and the -10 should not be that uncompetitive. Above that they have the 787, which should win against the A330NEO and the 787 also needs a constant flow of orders to keep the line busy. If the NAM is to make sense it needs to offer a breakthrough, otherwise Boeing can easily do nothing and wait till the technology is ready to replace the MAX. If you look at the average life on an airliner design of at least 25 years, there are too many possibly disrupting technologies on the horizon to do a normal design now.

So you did say it for effect then.

I'm open to being educated about the disruptive technologies that Boeing can apply to revolutionise the industry, that are not going to be available to Airbus which will make them very scared.....

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

seahawk wrote:

astuteman wrote:

I assume that you post this for effect ........

Rgds

If they aim for less, I see no point in the NMA at all. The MAX still has at least 10 years ahead of it and the -10 should not be that uncompetitive. Above that they have the 787, which should win against the A330NEO and the 787 also needs a constant flow of orders to keep the line busy. If the NAM is to make sense it needs to offer a breakthrough, otherwise Boeing can easily do nothing and wait till the technology is ready to replace the MAX. If you look at the average life on an airliner design of at least 25 years, there are too many possibly disrupting technologies on the horizon to do a normal design now.

So you did say it for effect then.

I'm open to being educated about the disruptive technologies that Boeing can apply to revolutionise the industry, that are not going to be available to Airbus which will make them very scared.....

Rgds

I dare say that "twin aisle for single aisle costs" as Boeing claimed, would be quite disruptive.

seahawk wrote:

astuteman wrote:

seahawk wrote:

If they aim for less, I see no point in the NMA at all. The MAX still has at least 10 years ahead of it and the -10 should not be that uncompetitive. Above that they have the 787, which should win against the A330NEO and the 787 also needs a constant flow of orders to keep the line busy. If the NAM is to make sense it needs to offer a breakthrough, otherwise Boeing can easily do nothing and wait till the technology is ready to replace the MAX. If you look at the average life on an airliner design of at least 25 years, there are too many possibly disrupting technologies on the horizon to do a normal design now.

So you did say it for effect then.

I'm open to being educated about the disruptive technologies that Boeing can apply to revolutionise the industry, that are not going to be available to Airbus which will make them very scared.....

Rgds

I dare say that "twin aisle for single aisle costs" as Boeing claimed, would be quite disruptive.

So would teleportation...saying vs doing it are different things.

Which single aisle?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

seahawk wrote:

astuteman wrote:

So you did say it for effect then.

I'm open to being educated about the disruptive technologies that Boeing can apply to revolutionise the industry, that are not going to be available to Airbus which will make them very scared.....

Rgds

I dare say that "twin aisle for single aisle costs" as Boeing claimed, would be quite disruptive.

So would teleportation...saying vs doing it are different things.

Which single aisle?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nobody denies this, this is why they have not launched, yet.

I think for competing with the A321/ a A322, Boeing should send out RFI's for a 35-40k lbs engine, not for a 50k lbs engine. If it's bigger, it costs and burns more.

keesje wrote:

I think for competing with the A321/ a A322, Boeing should send out RFI's for a 35-40k lbs engine, not for a 50k lbs engine. If it's bigger, it costs and burns more.

I suspect that is the thrust range (or a little bit more) for an NMA-5. I think the 6 and 7 would have needed the 50K engines.