Stitch wrote:

744SPX wrote:

I wonder how much wider you would have to go than the MC-21's fuselage to do 2-2-2. There may be a sweet spot where it would be viable against a spacious 3-3 like the -21 because of the massive decrease in turnaround times (assuming the fuselage is on the longer side).

Using the McDonnel-Douglas DC-XX 757 competitor as a guide, the original plan was for a fuselage of 429cm in width that was locked at 2+2+2 with I presume 18" seats. They then widened it to 439cm to allow 2+3+2 with 16.5" seats.

The 7J7 cabin was planned to be 478cm in width and was planned for 2+2+2, but SAS wanted the option for 2+3+2.

For comparison, the 767 is 502cm wide and the A320 is 370cm wide.

Interesting. A320 is what, 368cm? and the MC-21 is 381. 429cm might just work for 2-2-2 and with 18" wide seats, that would be killer.

Reposting a comment I put on the Airbus thread:

If the 5 years of fantastic profits from 2014-2019 didn't generate the 322 or the NMA program launches, what makes anyone think that Covid weakened airlines will pull the trigger now?

[*]

Ziyulu wrote:

Has anyone wondered if aisles have to be between seats? Why not have aisles on both sides of the plane with seats in the middle? ASSSSSSA (where A = aisle and S = seat).

The current rule is that no seat can be more than 2 seats from an aisle, Your suggestion would violate that rule.

SteelChair wrote:

Reposting a comment I put on the Airbus thread:

If the 5 years of fantastic profits from 2014-2019 didn't generate the 322 or the NMA program launches, what makes anyone think that Covid weakened airlines will pull the trigger now?

Indeed. Seems Boeing has their hands full with 737 and 787 production issues, 779 and MAX10 development issues, and that whole nebulous new cockpit thing, and of course everyone in the industry needs to be in the recovery phase of covid befure they'll consider spending on something new. Personally I think the earliest we could see a product offered for sale would be 2023.

bob75013 wrote:

[*]

Ziyulu wrote:

Has anyone wondered if aisles have to be between seats? Why not have aisles on both sides of the plane with seats in the middle? ASSSSSSA (where A = aisle and S = seat).

The current rule is that no seat can be more than 2 seats from an aisle, Your suggestion would violate that rule.

No, it won’t violate the rule. You are still at most two seats away.

Revelation wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Reposting a comment I put on the Airbus thread:

If the 5 years of fantastic profits from 2014-2019 didn't generate the 322 or the NMA program launches, what makes anyone think that Covid weakened airlines will pull the trigger now?

Indeed. Seems Boeing has their hands full with 737 and 787 production issues, 779 and MAX10 development issues, and that whole nebulous new cockpit thing, and of course everyone in the industry needs to be in the recovery phase of covid befure they'll consider spending on something new. Personally I think the earliest we could see a product offered for sale would be 2023.

Even that seems a little optimistic for something that is not a derivative. But certainly more realistic than any sooner...

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Revelation wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Reposting a comment I put on the Airbus thread:

If the 5 years of fantastic profits from 2014-2019 didn't generate the 322 or the NMA program launches, what makes anyone think that Covid weakened airlines will pull the trigger now?

Indeed. Seems Boeing has their hands full with 737 and 787 production issues, 779 and MAX10 development issues, and that whole nebulous new cockpit thing, and of course everyone in the industry needs to be in the recovery phase of covid befure they'll consider spending on something new. Personally I think the earliest we could see a product offered for sale would be 2023.

Even that seems a little optimistic for something that is not a derivative. But certainly more realistic than any sooner...

I assume for sale in 2023 means EIS around 2030, especially if recent programs are a guide for production and development timelines.

Ziyulu wrote:

Has anyone wondered if aisles have to be between seats? Why not have aisles on both sides of the plane with seats in the middle? ASSSSSSA (where A = aisle and S = seat).

Because people aren't interested in crouching to move around?

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Revelation wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Reposting a comment I put on the Airbus thread:

If the 5 years of fantastic profits from 2014-2019 didn't generate the 322 or the NMA program launches, what makes anyone think that Covid weakened airlines will pull the trigger now?

Indeed. Seems Boeing has their hands full with 737 and 787 production issues, 779 and MAX10 development issues, and that whole nebulous new cockpit thing, and of course everyone in the industry needs to be in the recovery phase of covid befure they'll consider spending on something new. Personally I think the earliest we could see a product offered for sale would be 2023.

Even that seems a little optimistic for something that is not a derivative. But certainly more realistic than any sooner...

They need to hit the right timing to still get the replacement orders. And to be honest it is already very late to still hope for 757 and 767 pax replacement orders.

Ziyulu wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

[*]

Ziyulu wrote:

Has anyone wondered if aisles have to be between seats? Why not have aisles on both sides of the plane with seats in the middle? ASSSSSSA (where A = aisle and S = seat).

The current rule is that no seat can be more than 2 seats from an aisle, Your suggestion would violate that rule.

No, it won’t violate the rule. You are still at most two seats away.

| Xxx A xxX | single aisle groups of 3 seats ( outer one has 2 to traverse to reach an aisle.)
| A xxX.Xxx A | six across between aisles ( inner ones has 2 to traverse to reach an aisle.)

you now need 2 aisles for 6 seats. and those aisles are cramped, no headroom.
even less efficient than a 2 aisle 7 across arrangement.
( top of the curve would be 12 across for 2 aisles but you work against the cross section area growth
of a large diameter fuselage. 10 across seems to be an optimax fit?)

enzo011 wrote:

I assume for sale in 2023 means EIS around 2030, especially if recent programs are a guide for production and development timelines.

Yes, I was thinking that too. There really is not a lot to point to that suggests BCA have a lot of leeway to do a clean sheet in that time. I will not say it is impossible, but that as far as I would go.

I do think that sooner, rather than later, they will be forced to act. The circumstances allowing stupendously cheap MAXs to float out the door will not be around forever, nor will blue chip orders be the same as they were pre-pandemic. Those things do militate toward a replacement.

seahawk wrote:

They need to hit the right timing to still get the replacement orders. And to be honest it is already very late to still hope for 757 and 767 pax replacement orders.

Yep. It is probably too late for those. But, as is also often the case, some of that can be attenuated by the fact that there is not always a need for exact like-for-like replacement, so long as a type can perform enough missions reliably. If BCA have a good enough offering by 2025-27, they may still get some of that market, if not in exact capacity...

kelval wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Has anyone wondered if aisles have to be between seats? Why not have aisles on both sides of the plane with seats in the middle? ASSSSSSA (where A = aisle and S = seat).

Because people aren't interested in crouching to move around?

Besides, unless, you are going 2-2-2, or 2--3-2 what is the point -- when decades of experience shows that single aisle works just fine with 6 across.

I would have sworn you originally had 7 Ss in your initial post.

This entire thread just causes the conclusion that Boeing is either going to take a big financial risk on a new program in the next few years, or they are going to fade into commercial aircraft obscurity/or become a minor player over time. There's not really any other option.

Chemist wrote:

This entire thread just causes the conclusion that Boeing is either going to take a big financial risk on a new program in the next few years, or they are going to fade into commercial aircraft obscurity/or become a minor player over time. There's not really any other option.

Nope there isn't - it's time for them to invest in future product. It's just a question of what. They are basically derivative'd out. Time for a new cross section/architecture be it 3x3 or 2-3-2.

morrisond wrote:

Chemist wrote:

This entire thread just causes the conclusion that Boeing is either going to take a big financial risk on a new program in the next few years, or they are going to fade into commercial aircraft obscurity/or become a minor player over time. There's not really any other option.

Nope there isn't - it's time for them to invest in future product. It's just a question of what. They are basically derivative'd out. Time for a new cross section/architecture be it 3x3 or 2-3-2.

The BOD needs to decide - if they want to stay financially conservative then just fade out of commercial aircraft. Or if they want to remain a top 2 player - go for the new program and take the risks. Boeing's commercial greatness over the past 50 years has been due to taking high-stakes risks: 707, 747, 777, 787 in particular.

Chemist wrote:

This entire thread just causes the conclusion that Boeing is either going to take a big financial risk on a new program in the next few years, or they are going to fade into commercial aircraft obscurity/or become a minor player over time. There's not really any other option.

There are only two huge OEM's in this sector and that means that Boeing and Airbus messing up is somehow recoverable. In addition to this, there is no way the US government would let Boeing collapse.

All Boeing needs to do is nail their next project and execute. Choose a market segment that guarantees sales. What people cannot agree on is whether it is a narrow body or a wide body.

China will now be the future big player number three. At least for their own domestic aircraft requirements. Quite relevant for the 737 market. With upcoming technologies something like a "Tesla" aircraft, not necessarily electric, might be possible as well. Just look at space systems. This is no time to lay back and just wait for new orders.

kelval wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Has anyone wondered if aisles have to be between seats? Why not have aisles on both sides of the plane with seats in the middle? ASSSSSSA (where A = aisle and S = seat).

Because people aren't interested in crouching to move around?

That and why would you want to create 2/3 middle seats and no window seats? It could possibly be the worst arrangement ever created!

The cabin ceiling is lowest outside. This layout doesn't make any sense for standing and walking in the aisles. Think alone about evacuation requirements please.

Boeing should be forced by the FAA to get the KC-46, 737 MAX, and 787 right, and then demonstrate that they can manage the 777-9 introduction trouble free, before they can start on any new design.

Noshow wrote:

China will now be the future big player number three. At least for their own domestic aircraft requirements. Quite relevant for the 737 market. With upcoming technologies something like a "Tesla" aircraft, not necessarily electric, might be possible as well. Just look at space systems. This is no time to lay back and just wait for new orders.

I think China will be a lot bigger player than people are expecting. They have put Hundred's of Billions into foreign economies/infrastructure - they will want payback plus I'm sure they will heavily subsidize purchase of C919 for their partners. https://chinapower.csis.org/china-forei ... nvestment/

I suspect that after 2030 China will have quite a large share of the market. They are targeting the whole Chinese Single Aisle market plus 20% of outside. China rarely misses its targets.

No wonder we haven't seen a ton of new orders for A320 and MAX from China in recent years.

https://www.flightglobal.com/opinion/su ... 53.article

China itself is projecting they will need about 10,000 more aircraft between now and 2038 - I would assume about 80% narrow bodies. Call it 400-500 a year after 2030 - how many of those will come from A&B? Plus how many more will go to China's partners?

This will take a very large chunk of future sales from A&B and keeps me thinking that if Boeing tries to be competitive in the 3x3 space they will loose.

Keep the MAX going until it dies a natural death - but invest in the 2-3-2 for the future. China will throw money at the 3x3 market to gain market share and lead to less than optimal returns for Boeing if they focus on that area.

Chemist wrote:

The BOD needs to decide - if they want to stay financially conservative then just fade out of commercial aircraft. Or if they want to remain a top 2 player - go for the new program and take the risks. Boeing's commercial greatness over the past 50 years has been due to taking high-stakes risks: 707, 747, 777, 787 in particular.

I guess this is why I'm somewhat optimistic about their future. It had gone quiet for a while, then Boeing announced both MAX10 and 779 would slip to 2023. I was thinking there was a good chance they were thinking about exiting new product development. It would still be relatively easy to back out of those commitments during the coronavirus crisis if they felt there was no future in it. Instead it seems they are giving the engineers and the regulators the time to find a way forward. I could never picture this happening under the previous CEO, so it speaks well for Calhoun.

ihmcallister wrote:

Boeing should be forced by the FAA to get the KC-46, 737 MAX, and 787 right, and then demonstrate that they can manage the 777-9 introduction trouble free, before they can start on any new design.

Seems like that is what they are doing with MAX10 and 779.

I'm not sure why you have KC46 in your list. USAF is accepting them in large numbers, albeit with a hold-back till the vision system is working to their satisfaction. Boeing is getting a large amount of cash each time one is accepted by the USAF. Boeing made some bad design choices on their original design for their vision system, now they are doing a re-design on their own dime. USAF is using them for training sorties, I see training sorties out of Pease here in Southern New Hampshire. They can even use them for operational missions if they choose, with some restrictions. Regardless, FAA has no role in the vision system, it's a military add-on. All the commercial stuff has been accepted by FAA.

Ziyulu wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

[*]

Ziyulu wrote:

Has anyone wondered if aisles have to be between seats? Why not have aisles on both sides of the plane with seats in the middle? ASSSSSSA (where A = aisle and S = seat).

The current rule is that no seat can be more than 2 seats from an aisle, Your suggestion would violate that rule.

No, it won’t violate the rule. You are still at most two seats away.

The place where you need the most headroom is the aisle. Any curvature of the sidewall would cut into that headroom.

Noshow wrote:

China will now be the future big player number three. At least for their own domestic aircraft requirements. Quite relevant for the 737 market.

Because, of course, Airbus doesn't sell, much less assemble, A320s in China.

Seriously, COMAC will be a threat, especially for Chinese domestic operations and for countries (like in Africa) where China has a strong influence due to their investments in local infrastructure - "hey, we built you a new airport, how about buying some COMAC planes to operate out of it?".

But Airbus and Boeing purchases are one of the major ways China (attempts) to address their (im)Balance of Payments with the EU and the US. If they completely stop buying Airbus and Boeing airframes in favor of C919s, C929s and C939s then they are either going to have to significantly increase their purchases of other products to match the dollar value of the scores of billions they spent on airplanes or risk trade-friction with the EU and US.

Stitch wrote:

Noshow wrote:

China will now be the future big player number three. At least for their own domestic aircraft requirements. Quite relevant for the 737 market.

Because, of course, Airbus doesn't sell, much less assemble, A320s in China.

Stitch wrote:

Seriously, COMAC will be a threat, especially for Chinese domestic operations and for countries (like in Africa) where China has a strong influence due to their investments in local infrastructure - "hey, we built you a new airport, how about buying some COMAC planes to operate out of it?".

If they can't pay for airports, they also can't pay for airplanes. Personally I think it'll all end up in tears for the Chinese. They'll keep making lots of loans that won't get repaid. They'll have lots of influence over a really poor and unstable place. It might help secure raw materials, but that's about it.

Revelation wrote:

If they can't pay for airports, they also can't pay for airplanes. Personally I think it'll all end up in tears for the Chinese. They'll keep making lots of loans that won't get repaid. They'll have lots of influence over a really poor and unstable place. It might help secure raw materials, but that's about it.

I presume all of this infrastructure investment is specifically to secure the natural resources of those countries. They are certainly not doing it for ideological propaganda reasons like the US and USSR did during the Cold War.

As Lightsaber and others have noted, the biggest drawback to the commercial success of COMAC in the open market is their (current) lack of MRO and AOG infrastructure. If an Airbus or Boeing frame needs emergency maintenance to return to service anywhere between Antarctica and the near side of the Moon ( ), Airbus and Boeing can get a team there within hours and usually have the plane back up within a day or two (depending on the level of work). COMAC does not (yet) have anywhere near the level of global coverage that Airbus and Boeing do and until they do, that is going to weigh against them in RFPs (at least for larger fleet purchases).

Stitch wrote:

Noshow wrote:

China will now be the future big player number three. At least for their own domestic aircraft requirements. Quite relevant for the 737 market.

Because, of course, Airbus doesn't sell, much less assemble, A320s in China.

Seriously, COMAC will be a threat, especially for Chinese domestic operations and for countries (like in Africa) where China has a strong influence due to their investments in local infrastructure - "hey, we built you a new airport, how about buying some COMAC planes to operate out of it?".

But Airbus and Boeing purchases are one of the major ways China (attempts) to address their (im)Balance of Payments with the EU and the US. If they completely stop buying Airbus and Boeing airframes in favor of C919s, C929s and C939s then they are either going to have to significantly increase their purchases of other products to match the dollar value of the scores of billions they spent on airplanes or risk trade-friction with the EU and US.

Or they will just do what they always do - say they will they lower the imbalance then ignore it completely like they almost always have in the past.

Stitch wrote:

Revelation wrote:

If they can't pay for airports, they also can't pay for airplanes. Personally I think it'll all end up in tears for the Chinese. They'll keep making lots of loans that won't get repaid. They'll have lots of influence over a really poor and unstable place. It might help secure raw materials, but that's about it.

I presume all of this infrastructure investment is specifically to secure the natural resources of those countries. They are certainly not doing it for ideological propaganda reasons like the US and USSR did during the Cold War.

As Lightsaber and others have noted, the biggest drawback to the commercial success of COMAC in the open market is their (current) lack of MRO and AOG infrastructure. If an Airbus or Boeing frame needs emergency maintenance to return to service anywhere between Antarctica and the near side of the Moon ( ), Airbus and Boeing can get a team there within hours and usually have the plane back up within a day or two (depending on the level of work). COMAC does not (yet) have anywhere near the level of global coverage that Airbus and Boeing do and until they do, that is going to weigh against them in RFPs (at least for larger fleet purchases).

Yes that is a big drawback. I doubt they will sell many to the West - but to those along the Silk Road/Africa - lots of frames financed on the same basis as the infrastructure - the never/never plan.

Just losing the Chinese market will be a big blow to A and B.

Revelation wrote:

If they can't pay for airports, they also can't pay for airplanes. Personally I think it'll all end up in tears for the Chinese. They'll keep making lots of loans that won't get repaid. They'll have lots of influence over a really poor and unstable place. It might help secure raw materials, but that's about it.

Getting rid of Dollars ( from trade imbalance ) for equity abroad.

(US is printing money and scooping up equity abroad).

Who is actually going to sit on all those Dollars when that currency collapses?

China's total balance of trade is not really a problem. It is less than 1% of their BDP. The US and EU may be negative, but not all of the rest of the world.

China had a total export of 2,494,230,194.97 in thousands of US$ and total imports of 2,134,982,614.99 in thousands of US$ leading to a positive trade balance of 359,247,579.98 in thousands of US$ The Effectively Applied Tariff Weighted Average (customs duty) for China is 3.39% and the Most Favored Nation (MFN) Weighted Average tariff is 4.27%.The trade growth is 2.31% compared to a world growth of 3.50%. GDP of China is 13,608,151,865,000 in current US$. China services export is 233,566,796,560 in BoP, current US$ and services import is 525,815,850,390 in Bop, current US$.China exports of goods and services as percentage of GDP is 19.51% and imports of goods and services as percentage of GDP is 18.73%.

https://wits.worldbank.org/countryprofile/en/chn

WIederling wrote:

Revelation wrote:

If they can't pay for airports, they also can't pay for airplanes. Personally I think it'll all end up in tears for the Chinese. They'll keep making lots of loans that won't get repaid. They'll have lots of influence over a really poor and unstable place. It might help secure raw materials, but that's about it.

Getting rid of Dollars ( from trade imbalance ) for equity abroad.

(US is printing money and scooping up equity abroad).

Who is actually going to sit on all those Dollars when that currency collapses?

Is far more complicated than that. You are ignoring that China pegs the Yuan against the dollar (amongst other currencies). They don’t want the Yuan to free float for a variety of reasons.

Polot wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Revelation wrote:

If they can't pay for airports, they also can't pay for airplanes. Personally I think it'll all end up in tears for the Chinese. They'll keep making lots of loans that won't get repaid. They'll have lots of influence over a really poor and unstable place. It might help secure raw materials, but that's about it.

Getting rid of Dollars ( from trade imbalance ) for equity abroad.

(US is printing money and scooping up equity abroad).

Who is actually going to sit on all those Dollars when that currency collapses?

Is far more complicated than that. You are ignoring that China pegs the Yuan against the dollar (amongst other currencies). They don’t want the Yuan to free float for a variety of reasons.

true! But where is the connection to my statements?

Another quarter, another set of comments from Boeing's CEO about their next airplane program:

Calhoun responded by citing “an awful lot of fantastic work in our defense programs,” and said there are plans to transfer that to the commercial side and significantly change how Boeing’s next new airplane is engineered and built.

Boeing’s expertise in making structures out of carbon composites, and new engineering modeling techniques developed on the defense side that apply both to the airplane design and the manufacturing processes, will make it possible to “create parts that can be assembled in one motion with great efficiency.”

While this has been successfully accomplished on low-volume defense projects, including the T-7 Red Hawk jet fighter trainer, Calhoun said, “We have to prove to ourselves we can do it at scale.”

Ref: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ore-losses

"The Air Current" has an article ( https://theaircurrent.com/technology/au ... its-wings/ , behind paywall ) suggesting that Boeing Australia's Loyal Wingman is another example of another such MBSE driven program.

Nice video of its first flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN6bw35nzSQ

morrisond wrote:

China rarely misses its targets

I know your talking about production targets because it couldn't be quality tagets as they never ever hit those on anything they produce. They are exactly why we live in a throw away world. We keep sliding down deeper into the rabbit hole.

I for one will not fly on anything they make for atleast 5 maybe 10 years after certification. All the rubber stamping over there will be exposed externally to China. Lots of long trrm reliability that needs to occur and they have zero understanding that longevity /reliability come from quality component's and systems. If they can't handle producing anything of quality I fear for those who'll have fly or fly in these ticking time bombs as there is zero history of a quality based mindset anywhere in there country.

SteelChair wrote:

Reposting a comment I put on the Airbus thread:

If the 5 years of fantastic profits from 2014-2019 didn't generate the 322 or the NMA program launches, what makes anyone think that Covid weakened airlines will pull the trigger now?

- Back then both Airbus and Boeing are focusing on the cash cow of A320neo, A350, MAX and B787. Also, spending 5-20 billion dollars to created a new product to cannibalize your other successful product seems counter-intuitive to maximize profits, especially since your current offering selling like a hot cake.
- MAX8 is currently have less order compared to A320neo.
- MAX9 and MAX10 have way less order compared to A321neo.
- MAX7 have less order than A220-300.
- 2030 is currently seen as "the deadline" for Airbus to came up with A320neo's replacement. Without anything on the table, Boeing would have to do something about a new product.
- Big changes in the market which favor smaller widebody aircraft and narrowbody aircraft with longer range.

Revelation wrote:

Another quarter, another set of comments from Boeing's CEO about their next airplane program:

Calhoun responded by citing “an awful lot of fantastic work in our defense programs,” and said there are plans to transfer that to the commercial side and significantly change how Boeing’s next new airplane is engineered and built.

Boeing’s expertise in making structures out of carbon composites, and new engineering modeling techniques developed on the defense side that apply both to the airplane design and the manufacturing processes, will make it possible to “create parts that can be assembled in one motion with great efficiency.”

While this has been successfully accomplished on low-volume defense projects, including the T-7 Red Hawk jet fighter trainer, Calhoun said, “We have to prove to ourselves we can do it at scale.”

Ref: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ore-losses

"The Air Current" has an article ( https://theaircurrent.com/technology/au ... its-wings/ , behind paywall ) suggesting that Boeing Australia's Loyal Wingman is another example of another such MBSE driven program.

Nice video of its first flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN6bw35nzSQ

Call me cynical but when they are at the program level of the Loyal Wingman design, they are still quite a bit away from going into commercial airplane production with that. I give them that the production line for the 3-4 protoypes is in itself a prototype for a future series production and highly automated, but that is something normal when using modern production techniques, because hand made one-offs are simply no longer acceptable, even as prototypes. Much less so, if you want to proof your RCS design with them.

Revelation wrote:

Another quarter, another set of comments from Boeing's CEO about their next airplane program:

Calhoun responded by citing “an awful lot of fantastic work in our defense programs,” and said there are plans to transfer that to the commercial side and significantly change how Boeing’s next new airplane is engineered and built.

Boeing’s expertise in making structures out of carbon composites, and new engineering modeling techniques developed on the defense side that apply both to the airplane design and the manufacturing processes, will make it possible to “create parts that can be assembled in one motion with great efficiency.”

While this has been successfully accomplished on low-volume defense projects, including the T-7 Red Hawk jet fighter trainer, Calhoun said, “We have to prove to ourselves we can do it at scale.”

Ref: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ore-losses

"The Air Current" has an article ( https://theaircurrent.com/technology/au ... its-wings/ , behind paywall ) suggesting that Boeing Australia's Loyal Wingman is another example of another such MBSE driven program.

Nice video of its first flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN6bw35nzSQ

That are in my opinion more of a foot on the breaks statement about a new airplane. Boeing is still sorting out their future production method. As long as we do not get statements about the state of the new cockpit architecture and a break through in large scale automated production techniques we are far off a new design.

The time line will most probably look something like this --> certification of MAX-10 --> certification of 777X --> finalisation of cockpit architecture --> finalising production reform --> launch new aircraft

The thing is, Boeing will need to get the production reform way before the new aircraft because they will have to train the vendors in the new techniques what will take a few years. Otherwise the launch could take a 787 turn. No good if Boeing is ready but not the vendors.

EAARbrat wrote:

morrisond wrote:

China rarely misses its targets

I for one will not fly on anything they make for atleast 5 maybe 10 years after certification. All the rubber stamping over there will be exposed externally to [the world]. Lots of long trrm reliability that needs to occur and they have zero understanding that longevity /reliability come from quality component's and systems. If they can't handle producing anything of quality I fear for those who'll have fly or fly in these ticking time bombs as there is zero history of a quality based mindset anywhere in there country.

Funny, simply fixing two words and you could be talking about the MAX and the 787 being rubber stamped by the FAA and, well, Boeing themselves.

CRJockey wrote:

Funny, simply fixing two words and you could be talking about the MAX and the 787 being rubber stamped by the FAA and, well, Boeing themselves.

The MAX was just shut down for a stupid design, the 787 deliveries were recently shut down for recurring quality issues (big enough to be a safety issue ).

Haha Boeing need to concentrate on the planes they have and get them right first before thinking of the next airplane?

ewt340 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Reposting a comment I put on the Airbus thread:

If the 5 years of fantastic profits from 2014-2019 didn't generate the 322 or the NMA program launches, what makes anyone think that Covid weakened airlines will pull the trigger now?

- Back then both Airbus and Boeing are focusing on the cash cow of A320neo, A350, MAX and B787. Also, spending 5-20 billion dollars to created a new product to cannibalize your other successful product seems counter-intuitive to maximize profits, especially since your current offering selling like a hot cake.
- MAX8 is currently have less order compared to A320neo.
- MAX9 and MAX10 have way less order compared to A321neo.
- MAX7 have less order than A220-300.
- 2030 is currently seen as "the deadline" for Airbus to came up with A320neo's replacement. Without anything on the table, Boeing would have to do something about a new product.
- Big changes in the market which favor smaller widebody aircraft and narrowbody aircraft with longer range.

ewt340 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Reposting a comment I put on the Airbus thread:

If the 5 years of fantastic profits from 2014-2019 didn't generate the 322 or the NMA program launches, what makes anyone think that Covid weakened airlines will pull the trigger now?

I don't think that you have to look too far with reference to the A322 and NMA launches.

1) AB was continually flat-out producing and selling a fantastically successful A320ceo/A320neo family. This included product development, assembly-line development and managing the ever-increasing production rate. The A322 may well need a new wing, IMO, and surely has been far less important than the list of tasks above.
2) BA was widely reported to have 1,000 tech staff on the NMA development task, and according to members here, an informal Launch decision had been made pre-MCAS/COVID.

cheers

seahawk wrote:

Call me cynical but when they are at the program level of the Loyal Wingman design, they are still quite a bit away from going into commercial airplane production with that. I give them that the production line for the 3-4 protoypes is in itself a prototype for a future series production and highly automated, but that is something normal when using modern production techniques, because hand made one-offs are simply no longer acceptable, even as prototypes. Much less so, if you want to proof your RCS design with them.

Yes, far from going into commercial production, in particular with the production volume and scale of tooling needed for something like NMA never mind NSA, but still an important proof of concept. Keep in mind it's more than production, it's about the end-to-end data flow that resulted in the item being produced, and the data part should scale well.

FluidFlow wrote:

That are in my opinion more of a foot on the breaks statement about a new airplane. Boeing is still sorting out their future production method. As long as we do not get statements about the state of the new cockpit architecture and a break through in large scale automated production techniques we are far off a new design.

The time line will most probably look something like this --> certification of MAX-10 --> certification of 777X --> finalisation of cockpit architecture --> finalising production reform --> launch new aircraft

The thing is, Boeing will need to get the production reform way before the new aircraft because they will have to train the vendors in the new techniques what will take a few years. Otherwise the launch could take a 787 turn. No good if Boeing is ready but not the vendors.

I agree with the major steps, but of course in the background the work is going on in parallel rather than serially.

Boeing is already using partners on T-7A namely Saab, so presumably they are up to speed how to share the tools and techniques.

We had at least one Seattle Times article talking about the roll out of MBSE for NMA before was shelved.

It pointed out that indeed there were growing pains, so hopefully there will be improvements by the time the actual next program gets launched.

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Call me cynical but when they are at the program level of the Loyal Wingman design, they are still quite a bit away from going into commercial airplane production with that. I give them that the production line for the 3-4 protoypes is in itself a prototype for a future series production and highly automated, but that is something normal when using modern production techniques, because hand made one-offs are simply no longer acceptable, even as prototypes. Much less so, if you want to proof your RCS design with them.

Yes, far from going into commercial production, in particular with the production volume and scale of tooling needed for something like NMA never mind NSA, but still an important proof of concept. Keep in mind it's more than production, it's about the end-to-end data flow that resulted in the item being produced, and the data part should scale well.

That is standard today imho. The automotive industry is largely there already, but it has not sped up development cycles or saved costs in the way it was predicted in the early 2000s. In the end they only learned that what they save in the development is well spent in testing more, not only the product but also the production set up, as many of the problems only show up if you are running the lines at full capacity. (drills over heating, machines needing calibration and so on)

seahawk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Call me cynical but when they are at the program level of the Loyal Wingman design, they are still quite a bit away from going into commercial airplane production with that. I give them that the production line for the 3-4 protoypes is in itself a prototype for a future series production and highly automated, but that is something normal when using modern production techniques, because hand made one-offs are simply no longer acceptable, even as prototypes. Much less so, if you want to proof your RCS design with them.

Yes, far from going into commercial production, in particular with the production volume and scale of tooling needed for something like NMA never mind NSA, but still an important proof of concept. Keep in mind it's more than production, it's about the end-to-end data flow that resulted in the item being produced, and the data part should scale well.

That is standard today imho. The automotive industry is largely there already, but it has not sped up development cycles or saved costs in the way it was predicted in the early 2000s. In the end they only learned that what they save in the development is well spent in testing more, not only the product but also the production set up, as many of the problems only show up if you are running the lines at full capacity. (drills over heating, machines needing calibration and so on)

That is the experience we have had too. whilst a very valid development, it is not a silver bullet.

Rgds

seahawk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Call me cynical but when they are at the program level of the Loyal Wingman design, they are still quite a bit away from going into commercial airplane production with that. I give them that the production line for the 3-4 protoypes is in itself a prototype for a future series production and highly automated, but that is something normal when using modern production techniques, because hand made one-offs are simply no longer acceptable, even as prototypes. Much less so, if you want to proof your RCS design with them.

Yes, far from going into commercial production, in particular with the production volume and scale of tooling needed for something like NMA never mind NSA, but still an important proof of concept. Keep in mind it's more than production, it's about the end-to-end data flow that resulted in the item being produced, and the data part should scale well.

That is standard today imho. The automotive industry is largely there already, but it has not sped up development cycles or saved costs in the way it was predicted in the early 2000s. In the end they only learned that what they save in the development is well spent in testing more, not only the product but also the production set up, as many of the problems only show up if you are running the lines at full capacity. (drills over heating, machines needing calibration and so on)

Also, 'stacking' of tolerances of actual production parts, what happens when the barrel of one piece is at 'minimum' and the other is at 'maximum'. For example the first two T-7A fit together perfectly, but will the production ones do the same. Will all the predrilled fastener holes match up, or will reaming and over sized fasteners needed. A very slow initial pace is needed to unearth those conditions and allow for adjustments before a whole lot get built. The A-380, the A-220, B-787, Max, KC-46, and B-748 all had initial production issues that took immense amount of time to solve.

JayinKitsap wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Yes, far from going into commercial production, in particular with the production volume and scale of tooling needed for something like NMA never mind NSA, but still an important proof of concept. Keep in mind it's more than production, it's about the end-to-end data flow that resulted in the item being produced, and the data part should scale well.

That is standard today imho. The automotive industry is largely there already, but it has not sped up development cycles or saved costs in the way it was predicted in the early 2000s. In the end they only learned that what they save in the development is well spent in testing more, not only the product but also the production set up, as many of the problems only show up if you are running the lines at full capacity. (drills over heating, machines needing calibration and so on)

Also, 'stacking' of tolerances of actual production parts, what happens when the barrel of one piece is at 'minimum' and the other is at 'maximum'. For example the first two T-7A fit together perfectly, but will the production ones do the same. Will all the predrilled fastener holes match up, or will reaming and over sized fasteners needed. A very slow initial pace is needed to unearth those conditions and allow for adjustments before a whole lot get built. The A-380, the A-220, B-787, Max, KC-46, and B-748 all had initial production issues that took immense amount of time to solve.

Gads! My life revolves around this sort of stuff at the moment. The "science" of tolerance management on large complex products like this is phenomenally complex to the extent of almost being an "art" form ......

Rgds

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ft-program
Rolls confirms talks with Boeing on new aircraft

Opus99 wrote:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-13/rolls-royce-confirms-talks-with-boeing-on-new-aircraft-program
Rolls confirms talks with Boeing on new aircraft

This seems to be walking back some earlier comments on UltraFan, no?

East said Thursday that while the Ultrafan’s development is further along than it was several years ago, the engine was designed with wide-body planes in mind and might not be suitable for smaller designs. He’s keeping an open mind, he said.

I'd love to see the actual quote rather than a media interpretation of what was said.

We know Boeing's thinking on NMA has been a twin-aisle thus wide body, but a small one.

We know RR pulled out of the earlier NMA effort in 2019, but it was not due to the thrust requirement range, it was about the maturity of the tech:

The UK engine manufacturer says it is “unable to commit” to the required timetable and ensure that it has a “sufficiently mature” powerplant for the aircraft.

Rolls-Royce points out that it believes the NMA “complements” the Boeing product range.

But the manufacturer says it would want to have a mature product at entry into service, one which satisfies its own technical maturity criteria.

Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ft-program

So maybe he's talking about the engine being too big for a true narrow body, but the media quote is ambiguous.

Sounds like maybe UltraFan is currently dimensioned for around 70-80,000 pounds of thrust for use with large widebodies like the 787 and A350 as a re-engine option to replace the existing Trents.

Stitch wrote:

Sounds like maybe UltraFan is currently dimensioned for around 70-80,000 pounds of thrust for use with large widebodies like the 787 and A350 as a re-engine option to replace the existing Trents.

There's no maybe around the current dimensions of the demonstrator, it is targeted at large wide bodies, yet the article above is titled "Rolls-Royce Confirms It’s Discussing All-New Jet With Boeing" so we're definitely not talking about 787 because it isn't an all-new jet.

UltraFan was previously characterized as "a scalable design from 25,000lb (112kN) thrust all the way up to 100,000lb" ( ref: FG at https://www.flightglobal.com/singapore- ... 35.article and many other similar google hits ) and now the CEO is saying "designed with wide-body planes in mind and might not be suitable for smaller designs".

So it seems to me the choices are either (a) poor reporting or (b) RR is changing is messaging around UltraFan.