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.....
I think all of us will agree Boeing hasn't been keeping its thoughts in this space a secret.
I think the internal decision to shelve the project and deal with the regulator's expectations first on MAX10 and 779 and then on future cockpit design is likely a setback in terms of utilizing whatever advantage they thought they may have had with regard to development and manufacturing process.
In short they've telegraphed where they think their advantages are, then have paused for a significant period of time, long enough to give the competitor time to react, one of the many prices they're paying for their lead role in the MCAS tragedy.
The only advantage is their development and manufacturing processes are maturing as they develop T-7A and MQ-25, so "lessons learned" will be available for the much larger commercial aircraft project.
Also Calhoun suggests they are continuing to make investments in this space so if/when they get to deploy the tech it should be more mature.
To my way of thinking this makes it even more likely they will need to aim for where they see a gap in the market, get their new development and manufacturing processes established using state of the art technologies, then scale them down to replace MAX using future technology and address the high volume market head on.
Trying to do all that is a huge task and perhaps impossible, trying to do that at the same time you push MAX out of the market seems to me to be folly.
Luckily for them they've performed a minor miracle in getting USAF to buy F-15EX, a major cash cow whose life is now extended for decades to come. Airbus's successes on the military side are paltry in comparison.
Thanks for the reply.
There's no doubt that a clean sheet offers "digital product" advantages in a way that a "legacy product" does not.
It feels to me that we risk creating another "CFRP barrels" emotional tidal wave here if we're not careful.
I sense a risk that some will jump on the "digital twin" and label it as "industry transforming", and "Airbus will be very scared".
This is the world I live in today. Admittedly on a much lower volume product.
The challenge we have is understanding just where MBSE and the digital twin offer a benefit, how to quantify what the benefits are, and how to unlock them
And the reality is that an all-new digital product will be continuing a journey that has been happening for a long time in most industries, and certainly in the big 2 OEM's.
People with insufficient domain knowledge will talk this up as if it is a magic wand that Boeing can wave.
Got news for them.....
That Boeing will do this is inevitable - its just a fact of where manufacturing is moving to.
And they WILL have an advantage over a legacy product in this respect - no question about it.
But they will need it as they face disadvantages in other aspects of this product decision
So I'll keep asking the questions:-
What do we think these "transformational" manufacturing technologies are?
Where do we see Digital design and manufacturing offering an advantage?
How big do we think these advantages are?
Where do we think the main drivers in an aircraft's production cost are, and how do they break down?
And how does the digital double affect them?
What other ways are there of deriving the "digital double" benefit?
I'd also ask
How much of these "transformational" manufacturing technologies can be back-fit to a legacy product?
(I'd ask people how they think Airbus approached, for example, the robotic FAL in Hamburg, and the analysis of the A321 wing that has resulted in a single-slotted flap that provides more lift, less drag, and is lighter, than the double slotted flap currently on the A321NEO) ...
And perhaps most importantly of all:-
How do all of these aspects compare in significance to the correct positioning of the product in the marketplace?
It is a reality that Boeing are not going to, and never will, make a 140t to 150t aircraft for the same price as Airbus make a 100t one. Fantasy.
So that sorts the 797-6 and -7 out
The 797-5 is now touted as a 225 seat, 5,000Nm plane.
We don't know in exactly what configuration. This is what wiki says
By early 2021, Boeing was studying a shorter -5X variant to compete with the Airbus A321XLR as a 757-200/300 successor with a range of 5,000 nmi (9,300 km). A smaller 225-seat variant of the previous NMA twin-aisle design with composite wings and fuselage, it would reuse existing structures, systems and engine technology to target production costs comparable to single-aisle aircraft. It would be powered by derated versions of the higher-bypass ratio 50,000 lbf (220 kN) engines proposed by CFM International and by Pratt & Whitney, while Rolls-Royce plc may be able to reconsider its withdrawal from bidding. Boeing could spend $2-3 billion a year for the development, up to $25 billion, as a potential go-ahead in 2022 or 2023 could lead to a late 2020s service entry.
Note:- this will reuse existing structures, systems and engine technology to target production costs
And will also lug around a de-rated version of the 50k lb engine.
And a reality is that in order to drive the production commonality with bigger siblings, the 5X will be over-engineered in some areas for its purpose (as evidenced by the engine quote)
We know in the real world the XLR is not a 225 seat plane - nearer 175 to 180 seats in a 2-class configuration.
And an A322 "simple" stretch would be nearer 200 seats in a "longer haul" 2-class and likely only have a nominal range of 3,500Nm
So what MTOW for the -5X? 120t? 125t? It will almost certainly be bigger than the A321/A322
I spotted this on the Wiki page..
By April 2021, a standard A321LR fuselage section had been withdrawn from the Hamburg production line for use as a "pre-industrial system accelerator" to test the integration of XLR-specific systems; at Saint-Nazaire, a nose section was serving as an integration test bed for a new instrument panel assembly, before being used to analyse structural reinforcements needed for the XLR.